CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Minster Grange Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe, including PPE, testing, social distancing, hygiene and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not covered by the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control at Minster Grange Residential Home.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 4 November 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control, as part of checks on care homes during coronavirus outbreaks.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, following shielding and social distancing rules, supporting safe visits, and accessing testing for residents and staff.
They also found practical measures to reduce infection risks. Staff changed clothes at the start and end of shifts, extra staff supported people isolating in their rooms, and staff received Covid-19 infection control training.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four questions.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering PPE, testing, hygiene, social distancing and the management of outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safer visiting
Visitors were supported in a way intended to reduce the chance of infection spreading.
“Visitors were supported in a safe way to minimise the risk of cross infection.” from the report
Support during isolation
The home added staff when needed so people isolating in their rooms could be supported.
“When required, additional staff had been placed onto shift to support people while they isolated in their rooms.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had received specific Covid-19 infection prevention and control training.
“Specific training around infection prevention and control for Covid-19 had been given to staff to promote awareness and reduce anxieties.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently supported to minimise the risk of cross infection?
- 02How do you manage testing and isolation for residents and staff?
- 03Do staff still change their clothing when starting and finishing work?
- 04What extra staffing is available when a resident has to isolate in their room?
- 05When was staff training on infection prevention and control last updated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some training and records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 25 February 2020. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting healthcare professional. They also checked care, medicines, recruitment, complaints and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe, listened to and well supported. Staff knew people well, treated them with dignity and supported their choices, health needs, interests and relationships.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, clean surroundings and good communication about people's care. They also found some daily records were not always complete, fluid records had not always been kept up to date, and more advanced staff training was limited.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 14 November 2017. This means inspectors found the service was meeting the legal requirements and providing a consistently good standard of care at the time of this inspection.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood abuse and safeguarding responsibilities, and individual risks were assessed and reviewed.
“People told us they felt safe and supported by the staff who worked in the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people as individuals and respected their choices, privacy and dignity. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
“Staff treated people as individuals and respected the choices they made. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity.” from the report
Personalised activities
People could choose how to spend their time and were supported with hobbies, outings, social events and religious or spiritual interests.
“People were supported to develop and maintain relationships and took part in activities and social events they enjoyed.” from the report
Good teamwork and leadership
Inspectors found a stable staff team, good communication between shifts and an approachable manager who listened to people, relatives and staff.
“There was a good approach to teamwork within the home.” from the report
Some staff training was limited
needs fixingInspectors found that more advanced training was limited. They discussed updating staff knowledge about texture-modified diets and introducing the Care Certificate for new staff.
“However, we found that more advanced training was limited.” from the report
Fluid records were not always current
needs fixingRecords used to check whether someone was drinking enough had not always been kept up to date when fluid monitoring was needed. Management said staff would be reminded about accurate recording.
“We found these records were not always kept up to date to fully assess if the person was drinking sufficient amounts.” from the report
Daily records needed to be more complete
minorThe management team recognised that some daily care records were not always recorded robustly. A computerised system was being considered to improve record keeping.
“The deputy manager was aware that some daily records were not always robustly recorded and advised they would keep reminding staff the importance of this.” from the report
- 01What advanced training do staff now receive, particularly about texture-modified diets?
- 02How do you make sure new staff complete the Care Certificate or receive equivalent introductory training?
- 03When someone needs fluid monitoring, how do you check that records are complete and up to date?
- 04What has changed in the way daily care records are completed since this inspection?
- 05How are relatives involved when care plans or risk assessments need to change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the accommodation and care provided; the previous Good ratings were reviewed and remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 2020 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 Minster Grange Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Minster Grange Residential Home →
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Minster Grange Residential Home →
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 April 2012.
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 Worcestershire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.