CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Spring Grove
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors reviewed infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, staffing pressures and vaccination requirements. The previous Safe rating was Good, but it was not reviewed at this visit.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not reviewed as part of the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not reviewed as part of the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not reviewed as part of the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not reviewed as part of the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found well-managed infection control, visiting and COVID-19 staffing arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 27 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, COVID-19 vaccination requirements and staffing pressures.
The home was supporting 33 people and could support up to 46. Inspectors found that information about changing COVID-19 guidance was well maintained and that relatives were kept informed.
Inspectors were assured that infection risks were managed effectively. They found suitable arrangements for personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, visiting, admissions and managing outbreaks. The service was inspected but not rated because this visit did not review all the areas needed for a full rating.
Clear COVID-19 information
Information about changing COVID-19 guidance and positive cases was kept up to date. The provider engaged with residents and relatives about changes during the pandemic.
“Information sharing about the impact and changing guidance around management of COVID-19, including any times where people had tested positive, was well maintained.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had effective arrangements for preventing and managing infection, including PPE, testing, cleaning and outbreak management.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visits were planned so that too many visitors were not present at the same time. A relative told inspectors that staff had been helpful in organising visits.
“The provider was facilitating visits to people living at the home by relatives.” from the report
Staffing cover
The provider used regular agency staff to cover absences and had arrangements intended to prevent those workers from working in other care services.
“Regular agency staff were used if cover for any staff absence that occurred.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and when was the policy last updated?
- 02How are visits organised now, and are there any limits on the number or type of visitors?
- 03How do you make sure agency staff do not work in other care services?
- 04How do you manage staffing pressures when permanent staff are absent?
- 05What were the latest ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, as these areas were not reviewed in this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, COVID-19 vaccination requirements and staffing pressures; it did not review all five key questions or provide a full service rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 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, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some variation in end-of-life planning.
This was a planned, comprehensive inspection. The inspector visited on 27 June and 2 July 2019. The first visit was unannounced and the second was arranged with 24 hours' notice.
The inspector spoke with 10 people living at the home, two relatives and several staff. They reviewed nine care files, six staff records and quality monitoring records. The home was caring for 38 people and could support up to 46.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found kind staff, personalised care plans, safe medicines arrangements, suitable staffing, good activities and effective management.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in November 2016. The report says end-of-life plans did not always contain the same level of detail, although staff revisited people's wishes.
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors that staff were kind, respectful and attentive. Staff supported people's privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“People told us they felt safe and staff were kind.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's individual needs, abilities and preferences. Staff knew how to provide the support each person wanted.
“People's care and support plans were up to date and personalised.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. An electronic recording system had helped reduce medicines errors.
“The registered manager told us that incidents of medicines errors had significantly reduced since the electronic system had been introduced.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in activities inside the home and in the local community. There were separate activities for people living with dementia.
“A daily programme of activities was provided.” from the report
Good management
Inspectors found that managers monitored quality, acted on feedback and supported staff. Residents, relatives and staff had opportunities to discuss the service.
“The registered manager showed effective leadership and the home was well run.” from the report
End-of-life plans varied
minorThe amount of detail in people's end-of-life plans was not consistent. The manager said staff would continue to revisit people's wishes and improve these plans.
“The quality of detail about people's end of life wishes and needs varied.” from the report
- 01How would you record and review my relative's end-of-life wishes if they do not want to discuss them at first?
- 02How would you support my relative's specific mobility, falls or other health risks?
- 03What activities would suit my relative's interests, abilities and communication needs?
- 04How would you make sure my relative's cultural, religious and relationship preferences are included in their care plan?
- 05How would you respond if my relative needed nursing care rather than residential personal care?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the previous Good ratings remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 September 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 Spring Grove
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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 Camden
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 £960 to £1,300 a week. 75 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
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.