CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Quarry Hill Grange Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, there were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support suited to their needs, including help with food, drinks, health appointments and specialist diets. Staff had training, supervision and appraisals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and knew people's preferences. People were offered choices and were generally treated with dignity, although privacy screens and bathroom access needed improvement.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans gave staff guidance about people's needs and preferences. People could join activities and visitors were welcomed, but plans could contain more personal history, hobbies and interests.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider used audits, feedback, complaints and incident reviews to monitor quality and make improvements. Staff said they were supported and listened to.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Quarry Hill Grange Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some privacy and care-plan improvements needed.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 30 September 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, accidents, safeguarding and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines systems, clean surroundings and good support with food, health care and activities.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well and supported their choices. Inspectors noted that privacy screens and access to communal bathrooms needed attention, and care plans could include more information about people's history, hobbies and interests.
Kind relationships
People were treated respectfully and staff had built caring relationships with them. Inspectors saw relaxed and positive interactions.
“People were treated with respect. Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff received training and their competence was checked regularly.
“Medicines systems were well organised, and people were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, with infection-control training, protective equipment and separate slings for people using hoists.
“The home was clean and tidy, and the registered manager ensured cleanliness was maintained.” from the report
Quality oversight
Regular checks were used to identify and address shortfalls. Feedback, complaints, care reviews and incidents were used to improve care.
“There were effective systems in place to manage the quality of the service and drive improvements.” from the report
Privacy arrangements
needs fixingInspectors said privacy screens were not always in the most effective position and communal bathrooms needed to be protected from access when in use. The provider and manager agreed to take immediate action.
“However, there was a need to ensure the privacy screens were in the most effective place and access to communal bathrooms could be restricted when in use.” from the report
More personal detail in care plans
minorCare plans covered people's care needs and preferences, but inspectors said they could give staff more information about personal history, hobbies and interests.
“The plans could be enhanced further with more details about people's history, hobbies and interests.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after the inspection about the position of privacy screens?
- 02How do you stop people entering a communal bathroom while it is in use?
- 03How do current care plans record each person's history, hobbies and interests?
- 04How many staff are on duty for each shift, and how is this matched to people's needs?
- 05How are feedback, accidents and complaints used to make changes to care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the premises and care, and assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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.
What inspectors found, November 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but some care records and dignity arrangements needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 October 2016. Two inspectors and an expert by experience spoke with people using the home, relatives and staff. They observed care in shared areas and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people were generally safe and received their medicines as prescribed. Staff understood people's needs, provided kind care and supported choices. People had access to food, activities and healthcare, and relatives said they were welcomed.
Some improvements were needed. Emergency evacuation plans were not always personalised. One medicine instruction was vague, and some care plans contained incomplete or conflicting personal information. Inspectors also found some shortcomings in grooming, privacy and interaction.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the service met the required standard at the time of this inspection, while still identifying areas to improve.
Risk management
Risks linked to mobility, nutrition, hydration and skin care were assessed and reviewed. Actions were recorded to reduce these risks.
“Risks associated with people's care and support had been assessed.” from the report
Medicines
Inspectors checked medicines and records for six people and found that medicines had been received and given as prescribed.
“This meant that people were provided with their medicines in a safe way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's needs and were observed offering reassurance, choices and support at a pace that suited each person.
“We observed support being provided throughout our visit. Staff showed a good understanding of people's needs.” from the report
Activities and choice
People were offered activities such as trips, music, knitting and exercises. Their decisions to take part or not were respected.
“People were offered opportunities to be involved in activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Listening to feedback
The home held meetings and used surveys. Inspectors found that concerns and suggestions were discussed and could lead to changes.
“This showed us that people's thoughts of the service were taken seriously.” from the report
Emergency evacuation plans
needs fixingSome evacuation plans did not say what equipment would be needed for particular people. This could leave staff without important information in an emergency.
“This meant the staff team did not have all the information they needed should they be required to support this person in this way.” from the report
Medicine instruction
needs fixingThe instruction for a medicine used for agitation did not clearly say when it should be offered. The deputy manager was told to address this.
“We did note the protocol for a medicine which was given for agitation was rather vague and didn't include at what stage of their agitation this should be offered.” from the report
Personalised care records
needs fixingSome care plans did not include enough information about preferences such as toiletries, clothing and food. One plan gave conflicting instructions about the sling used with a hoist.
“More personalised information would give the staff team the knowledge to provide more person centred care.” from the report
Dignity and personal care
needs fixingInspectors found dirty fingernails, limited assistance with shaving and an undignified approach to nail care. The same clippers were used for two people without disinfection between uses.
“This task was not handled in a dignified way.” from the report
- 01How were the evacuation plans updated after inspectors said they were not always personalised?
- 02What was changed about the instruction for the medicine used for agitation?
- 03How do you now make sure care plans contain accurate, personal details about clothing, food, toiletries and moving equipment?
- 04How do you check that people's grooming, privacy and dignity needs are being met every day?
- 05How do you make sure people who spend time in their rooms or shared areas receive regular social interaction and activities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions and checks of selected records. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 2016 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 Quarry Hill Grange Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Quarry Hill Grange Residential Home →
- November 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Quarry Hill Grange Residential Home →
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 May 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 Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.