CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ings Grove House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, helpful care, but medicines, records and oversight were not always safe or reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection in June and July 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was not always safe. Inspectors found gaps in guidance for medicines given when needed, records about thickeners, nutritional supplements and learning from medicine errors. Some call bells took more than 10 minutes to answer, and staffing levels needed further review.
The home was not always well-led. Care records were sometimes incomplete, not detailed enough or contradictory. Quality checks were taking place but had not found all the problems. People and relatives nevertheless described kind care, felt safe and said the service had helped people recover.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in October 2019, to Requires Improvement. The report says the provider breached two regulations and that CQC will continue to monitor the home.
People felt safe
People and relatives said people felt safe and that staff checked on them and supported them.
“People told us they felt safe and enjoyed being at the service” from the report
Kind and positive care
People and relatives described staff as kind, attentive and supportive. They said the home had a positive effect on people.
“People told us being at the service had a positive impact on them.” from the report
Open management
The management team accepted the problems found and said they wanted to put improvements in place.
“Throughout the inspection, the management team were honest and open with us.” from the report
Communication with professionals
Inspectors found systems for communicating with the care team and outside healthcare professionals. Healthcare professionals gave positive feedback.
“Feedback from healthcare professionals was positive in this area.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousGuidance was missing for some medicines given when needed. Inspectors also found weak evidence about thickeners, unavailable nutritional supplements and insufficient learning from medicine errors.
“Medication was not always managed safely.” from the report
Incomplete care records
seriousSome care plans and records were not detailed enough or contained conflicting information. This could mean staff did not have consistent information about people's care.
“We found some care plans and records of people's care were not always sufficiently detailed and contained conflicting information” from the report
Call-bell waits and staffing
needs fixingSeveral call bells took more than 10 minutes to answer. The report recommended reviewing staffing levels, staff deployment, people's needs and the building layout.
“We reviewed the call bell response time report and found several calls had taken over 10 minutes to respond” from the report
Checks did not find all problems
needs fixingAudits were taking place, but they had not identified several medicine and call-bell issues found by inspectors.
“Quality assurance systems were in place and happening regularly, however these had not always been effective in identifying or driving the necessary improvements required.” from the report
- 01What has been changed so medicines given when needed have clear protocols and staff follow them?
- 02How do you now record and check that thickeners are given as prescribed?
- 03What is the current average and longest call-bell response time, especially in the evening and at night?
- 04How have staffing levels and staff deployment changed after the dependency and call-bell review?
- 05How are care records checked to make sure they are complete, detailed and consistent?
This was an unannounced inspection covering Safe and Well-led; the report gives no separate ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 August 2022 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, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and well-organised care, with some records and medicines practices still needing attention.
This was a planned inspection following an earlier rating of Requires Improvement. Inspectors visited on 26 and 30 September 2019. They spoke with people, a relative and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and received kind, respectful care. Inspectors found enough staff, good support from health professionals, suitable activities and effective systems for complaints and feedback.
The home had improved since the previous inspection and was no longer in breach of regulations. Inspectors still found some gaps in cream records, a small number of risk assessments needing more detail, and staff signing medicine records before giving medicines. The manager acted on the medicines issue during the inspection.
Kind and respectful staff
People consistently described staff as kind and fair. Inspectors saw staff being patient, warm and respectful, while promoting privacy and independence.
“We observed without exception staff treated people with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were suitable and people received timely help. The home had also reduced its use of agency staff by recruiting more permanent workers.
“There were enough staff deployed to ensure people received timely care and support.” from the report
Good rehabilitation support
The home worked with physiotherapists, occupational therapists and nursing staff to support people's health and rehabilitation.
“The service worked effectively with healthcare services to aid in people's support and rehabilitation whilst they stayed in the home.” from the report
Improved management
The home had acted on problems found at the previous inspection. Audits and checks were being used to identify and complete improvements.
“Action had been taken to act on the issues identified at the last inspection.” from the report
Some risk assessments lacked detail
needs fixingA small number of risk assessments did not contain enough detail. Inspectors were confident the manager would address this, but families should ask how this is checked for their relative.
“Whilst we identified a small number of risk assessments needed more detail, we were confident this would be addressed by the registered manager.” from the report
Cream records had gaps
needs fixingRecords for applying creams had improved but were not complete every time. The manager was checking these records and reminding staff to complete them.
“Whilst we saw there were some gaps in recording, records were generally much improved.” from the report
Medicine records were signed too early
needs fixingStaff were signing medicine administration records before giving the medicines. The manager took immediate action after inspectors raised this.
“On the day of the inspection we identified staff were signing MAR charts prior to administering medicines which is not good practice.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative's risk assessments contain enough detail and are updated when their needs change?
- 02How do you check that creams are recorded every time they are applied?
- 03What action was taken after staff were found signing medicine records before giving medicines?
- 04Which staff training updates are still outstanding, and when will they be completed?
- 05How will you support my relative's rehabilitation and help them regain independence during their stay?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided, following the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 October 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 Ings Grove House
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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 Kirklees
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. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.