CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Newgrove House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements, including visits, admissions, protective equipment, testing and outbreak management. They were only somewhat assured about cleaning records because not all cleaning was recorded.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 controls, but some cleaning was not recorded.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 15 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
The home had regular testing for people and staff, detailed COVID-19 risk assessments and vaccination arrangements. Inspectors were assured about visits, shielding, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing and managing outbreaks.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about cleaning and hygiene records. Some cleaning was not recorded, including cleaning of office equipment and high-touch points. The overall service and Safe question were inspected but not rated.
Visiting arrangements
Visits were organised in line with the government guidance in place at the time of inspection.
“Visits were arranged in line with government guidance.” from the report
Regular testing
People living in the home and staff were included in a regular testing programme.
“People and staff were part of a regular testing programme.” from the report
COVID-19 risk planning
People had detailed risk assessments covering COVID-19.
“People had detailed risk assessments in relation to COVID-19.” from the report
Vaccination arrangements
The report says staff had received the COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of working in the home.
“Staff had received the COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of their deployment.” from the report
Cleaning records
needs fixingNot all cleaning was recorded, including cleaning of office equipment and high-touch points. The home said it would add information to its documents to keep them up to date and reduce infection risks.
“Not all cleaning was recorded, for example office equipment and high touch points.” from the report
- 01How do you now record cleaning of office equipment and high-touch points?
- 02What additional information has been added to the infection prevention and control documents?
- 03How do you manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and what impact could these have on people's care?
- 04How are visiting, testing, protective equipment and outbreak arrangements kept up to date?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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, May 2018
Rated Good; this was a major improvement from the previous Inadequate rating and special measures, though well-led remained Requires Improvement.
Inspectors carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 8 March 2018. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care files, medicines records, staffing information and management records.
The home had improved significantly since the previous inspection in July 2017. Inspectors found safe staffing, better risk assessments, kind care, improved consent arrangements, suitable food and activities, and better responses to people's needs.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because the home needed a longer record of consistent good practice, and some audits and records still needed strengthening.
Enough staff
Staffing was maintained at a level inspectors considered suitable for people's needs. Staff were visible and responded promptly to call bells.
“We found staffing levels were appropriate for the number of people who used the service and the level of their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people warmly and respectfully, while protecting their privacy and dignity.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. We observed staff knocking on bedroom doors and asking if it was okay for them to come in, before entering the room.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were offered group and one-to-one activities, outings and regular contact with family and friends.
“The activity file showed some people had participated in outings to a farm shop, to a local restaurant for lunch and to the pantomime.” from the report
Medicines recording
needs fixingPeople received their medicines as prescribed, but some records needed to be clearer. This included instructions for when-needed medicines and handwritten entries on medicines records.
“There were some minor recording issues which were discussed with the registered manager to address with staff.” from the report
Care plans not always personal enough
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain people's preferences for how care should be provided in enough detail. Further work was under way to improve them.
“However, we noted that in some care plans the level of information about people's preferences for how they wished their care to be delivered was inconsistent.” from the report
Management checks needed strengthening
needs fixingThe medicines and care plan audits did not always examine the quality of records in enough depth. The provider confirmed that more comprehensive audit tools were put in place after the inspection.
“We found the medicines and care plan audits in place were limited in scope and required some further development to ensure all areas were reviewed effectively to identify any shortfalls.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicines records, including instructions for when-needed medicines, are complete and accurate?
- 02How have you made sure care plans explain each person's preferences for how their care should be delivered?
- 03What evidence can you show that the improvements since the previous Inadequate inspection have been maintained?
- 04How do you monitor whether food, fluid, weight and pressure-relief records are completed consistently?
- 05What is still being done to achieve a Good rating for well-led?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and checking whether improvements from the previous inspection had been made and sustained. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 May 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 Newgrove House Care Home
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 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
12 live-in carers within about an hour of North East Lincolnshire
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 £1,350 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.