CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Grove Lodge Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risk checks were in place, but action was not always taken promptly when environmental problems were found. Some fire training and fire drills were incomplete, although several issues were addressed after the visit.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed. They were supported with food, drink, health appointments and appropriate care, and staff were receiving training, although some mandatory training was still being completed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors found that staff respected privacy and dignity, encouraged independence and involved people in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's needs and preferences. People were supported with communication, family relationships, activities and interests, and felt able to raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was visible and staff felt supported. People, relatives and staff were invited to give feedback, and the managers acted on issues raised, although environmental problems had not always been dealt with quickly.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Grove Lodge Care Home is rated Good overall, but inspectors found safety systems needed improvement and some environmental risks were not dealt with quickly enough.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 18 December 2023. They spoke with people and staff, observed care, checked the building, and reviewed care, recruitment, training and management records.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. People said staff were kind, knew them well and supported their choices, health needs, meals and activities.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement, down from Good at the last inspection. Inspectors found delays in dealing with some environmental problems, including unsecured furniture, missing radiator covers, faulty fire doors and emergency lighting. Some staff had also not completed fire training or a fire drill.
The management team took action on several issues during or just after the inspection. CQC made a recommendation about making sure risks in the environment are dealt with promptly.
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors that staff were kind and caring. Staff respected privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“The staff are absolutely lovely there is nothing that is too much trouble for them.” from the report
Staff know people well
There was a consistent staff team. Inspectors found that staff knew people's needs and responded when they needed help.
“There was a consistent team of staff working at Grove Lodge Care Home. It was evident they knew people very well and worked together to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. People could make choices about their routines and activities.
“People's care records were personalised to the person's individual needs and preferences and staff supported people with care that was personalised.” from the report
Clean home and safe medicines support
The home was clean and tidy, with suitable stocks of protective equipment. Inspectors observed staff giving medicines safely and found records to guide them.
“People were supported to take their medicine safely. Suitable records were in place to guide staff on how to support people” from the report
Responsive management
The management team listened to feedback and took action on several issues raised during the inspection. People and staff could share their views through meetings and surveys.
“The management team were very responsive to feedback given and took action to address any issues raised during the inspection.” from the report
Delayed action on environmental risks
seriousInspectors found that some environmental risks had not been dealt with promptly. These included unsecured furniture, missing radiator covers, faulty fire doors and emergency lighting.
“Processes to assess and manage risk were in place but had not always led to timely action to address any environmental issues.” from the report
Fire training and drills incomplete
needs fixingSome staff had not completed fire training or taken part in a fire drill. The management team knew about this and said action was being taken.
“Some staff had not yet completed their fire training or participated in a fire drill.” from the report
Some training and checks were still outstanding
needs fixingNot all staff had completed mandatory learning about supporting people with learning disabilities and autism. Some medicine competency assessments also needed review because they were dated.
“Some competency assessments needed to be reviewed as they were dated.” from the report
- 01Have all the environmental issues found at the inspection been fixed, including unsecured furniture, radiator covers, fire doors and emergency lighting?
- 02Have all staff now completed fire training and taken part in a fire drill?
- 03What is the timetable for completing all outstanding mandatory training?
- 04How often are medicine competency assessments reviewed, and have the dated assessments now been updated?
- 05How will my relative be involved in creating and reviewing their personalised care plan?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with the Safe rating changing from Good to Requires Improvement and the other ratings remaining Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 2024 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, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found significant improvements and safe, caring support, but some first-floor rooms were inaccessible to people with limited mobility.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 June 2018. Inspectors reviewed care and medicines records, staff records and management records. They also observed care and spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff and a healthcare professional.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that staff were trained, medicines were managed safely, care plans were person-centred and people were treated with kindness and respect.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in December 2016. Earlier problems included limited hot water, insufficient staff training and weak quality checks. Inspectors found that these problems had been addressed and that the improvements had been maintained.
Improvements since the last inspection
The home addressed earlier problems with hot water, staff training and quality monitoring. Inspectors found that these improvements had been sustained.
“At this inspection we found significant improvements in all areas.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and administered safely by trained staff. The electronic system helped managers check administration and identify errors.
“Medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people in a calm, patient and respectful way. Inspectors found that privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
“We observed staff working with people in a respectful, patient and unhurried way.” from the report
Individual care
Care plans covered people's mobility, communication, nutrition, hydration and health needs. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Each person had a care plan that was tailored to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Activities and choices
People could choose from activities including walks, games, music, singing, films and crafts. They were not pressured to join in.
“People told us that they felt happy with the range of activities available and were not pressured to take part if they did not want to.” from the report
Access to first-floor rooms
minorThree first-floor bedrooms could not be accessed by people with limited mobility because there was no passenger lift. This could restrict room choices for some people.
“The three bedrooms on the first floor of the building could not be accessed by people with limited mobility because there was no passenger lift.” from the report
Alternative meal choice
minorOne person said the alternative meal was adequate but usually less impressive than the main meal. Families should check how the home handles food preferences and refused meals.
“The alternative is not usually as impressive as the main course but it is adequate.” from the report
- 01How would you support someone with limited mobility if they were offered, or wanted, a first-floor bedroom?
- 02How do you make sure alternative meals meet a person's preferences and nutritional needs?
- 03How often are medicines records checked, and how would you tell families if a medicines error occurred?
- 04What specialist training would staff have for my relative's mental health or dementia needs?
- 05How are changes in a person's health, care plan or activities discussed with their family?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 July 2018 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 Care Home
4 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Stockport
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 £1,260 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.