CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Grove Lodge and Courtyard
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines management and systems to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. They recommended better analysis of accidents and incidents to identify patterns and trends.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not looked at during this inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not looked at during this inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not looked at during this inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found quality monitoring, supportive management and good communication with people, relatives, staff and outside professionals. The previous governance breach had been addressed.
What inspectors found, May 2021
The Grove and The Courtyard is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but accident records needed better analysis.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 and 29 April 2021. Inspectors checked whether the home had improved its recruitment and management systems after two breaches at the previous inspection. They spoke with 10 people, one relative and six staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer recruitment checks, safe medicine management, clean surroundings and suitable infection control measures. People said they felt safe and were treated respectfully. Staff supported people to manage risks while remaining as independent as possible.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection and was no longer in breach of regulations 19 and 17. However, inspectors recommended better analysis of accidents and incidents so that patterns and trends could be identified and acted on.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and that staff looked after them well.
“The best thing about being here is feeling safe.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely, records were accurate, and people were involved in regular reviews.
“Medicines were managed safely, stored securely and in line with legal requirements.” from the report
Respectful support
People were treated respectfully, listened to and involved in the running of the home and their own care reviews.
“People were treated in a respectful manner by all staff.” from the report
Supportive leadership
Staff described the management team as approachable and supportive. Inspectors found systems to monitor care quality and improve the service.
“Quality monitoring of the service was in place.” from the report
Accident records needed more analysis
minorAccidents and incidents were recorded and investigated, but the home needed to analyse them more fully to identify patterns and trends and take any necessary action.
“Further analysis was required to look at these for any patterns and trends so the necessary action could be taken.” from the report
- 01How do you now analyse accidents and incidents to identify patterns and trends?
- 02What action would you take if repeated accidents or incidents were identified?
- 03What checks do you carry out before employing new staff?
- 04How are people involved in regular reviews of their medicines?
- 05How will you make sure my relative is involved in care reviews and setting personal goals?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 May 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care but serious weaknesses in recruitment and oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 and 19 September 2019. Inspectors spoke with 10 people, nine staff members and an independent advocate. They reviewed care and medicines records, staff files and management records.
People generally felt safe and there were enough staff. Inspectors found good care in the areas of effectiveness, kindness and responsiveness. People had access to food, healthcare, personalised support and opportunities to build independence.
However, recruitment checks were not always completed or properly reviewed. On one occasion, an unsuitable person was employed. Medicines fridge temperatures and some staff medicine competency checks also needed attention.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while effective, caring and responsive were rated Good. The provider breached two regulations and was asked to take action.
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as understanding and available when needed. Inspectors saw a calm and relaxed atmosphere.
“Staff treated people with kindness and respect. The atmosphere in the service was calm and relaxed.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans reflected people's wishes, preferences and goals. Staff helped people develop skills and work towards more independent living.
“People's care was developed around their wishes, preferences and goals.” from the report
Choice and independence
People could prepare food, use communal areas and go out independently where appropriate. Staff supported people to manage aspects of their own care.
“Staff supported people in a way that maximised their independence, choice and control.” from the report
Access to healthcare
The home had links with health and social care professionals, and feedback from professionals was positive.
“People were supported to have access to a range of healthcare professionals to help ensure they remained healthy.” from the report
Unsafe recruitment checks
seriousRecruitment procedures were not always followed. Information about a person's suitability to work with vulnerable adults was not properly reviewed, and an unsuitable person was employed on one occasion.
“Information received during pre-employment checks was not correctly reviewed and as a result a person who was unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults had been employed.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits and checks existed, but they had not provided enough oversight to protect people and ensure legal requirements were met. The registered manager had also not always submitted required notifications.
“There had not been sufficient oversight of systems and procedures to ensure people's safety.” from the report
Medicines checks needed attention
needs fixingMedicines fridge temperatures were not always within the recommended range and this had not been addressed. Some staff competency checks were not up to date, although evidence showed these were later completed.
“Medicines fridge temperatures had not always been within the recommended temperature range.” from the report
Limited activities at the time
needs fixingSome people said they did not always have enough to do. The staff member responsible for activities had recently left and the home was recruiting a replacement.
“People told us they did not always have enough to do.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure DBS information and full employment histories are checked before staff start work?
- 02What changes have you made to management audits so recruitment, medicines and other safety risks are identified and acted on?
- 03How do you check medicines fridge temperatures and staff competency checks now?
- 04Has a replacement activity lead been appointed, and what activities are currently available?
- 05Have all required notifications now been submitted to the CQC on time?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions after a change in the registered provider, with the inspection taking place on 17 and 19 September 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 November 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Grove Lodge and Courtyard
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 September 2018.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Middlesbrough
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,230 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.