CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Temple Grove Nursing Home
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe, risks were assessed and managed, and staff responded promptly to call bells. Inspectors found safe recruitment, safe medicine arrangements and enough staff to meet people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were assessed before they moved in. Staff had relevant training, worked with health professionals and supported people's nutrition, health and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- People, relatives and professionals described staff as kind, compassionate and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to maintain their dignity, relationships, faith and independence.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care was strongly personalised and adapted to people's changing needs. Inspectors found creative support for activities, communication, hydration, relationships, independence and end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Managers had strong oversight and involved people, relatives and staff in improving the service. Inspectors found an open culture, motivated staff, detailed checks and evidence that learning led to changes.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Temple Grove Nursing Home rated Outstanding; inspectors found kind, safe care with especially strong personalised support and leadership.
Inspectors visited without notice on 25 and 26 November 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They also checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective and caring services. People were protected from abuse, risks were managed, medicines were handled safely, and there were enough trained staff. People and relatives spoke very highly of the kindness, dignity and respect shown by staff.
Responsive care and leadership were rated Outstanding. Inspectors found highly personalised support, creative activities, strong support at the end of life, and good links with the community. They also found managers listened to feedback, checked the quality of care and made improvements.
The overall rating rose from Good at the previous inspection, published in January 2017, to Outstanding. Safe, effective and caring stayed at Good, while responsive and well-led improved from Good to Outstanding.
Personalised care
Staff adapted care around people's wishes, health needs and communication. Inspectors found examples of people regaining confidence, independence and activities they had previously been unable to enjoy.
“Since the previous inspection, staff had gone the extra mile to improve people's physical and emotional wellbeing.” from the report
End-of-life support
The home had thoughtful ways to support people and relatives before and after a death. This included personalised surroundings, memorials and emotional support from relatives.
“The staff had thoroughly considered these little things when providing end of life care.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People, relatives and professionals consistently praised staff's kindness, compassion and respect. Staff knew people well and responded quickly when their health changed.
“Everyone we spoke with and heard from gave the highest feedback about the service and the kindness and compassion that staff showed people.” from the report
Strong leadership and improvement
Managers listened to feedback and used audits, incidents and people's views to improve care. The home introduced new roles, training and systems to reduce risks and support better outcomes.
“There was a culture of everyone being involved in the continuous improvement of the service.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in choosing staff and planning their support. They were helped to manage medicines, use technology, practise their faith, garden and maintain relationships.
“People were involved in recruiting staff, so they had a say about who might support them.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's particular complex nursing needs, and which staff are trained to provide this care?
- 02Can my relative manage some or all of their own medicines, and how would you assess and review this?
- 03How would you support my relative's communication needs if they have limited speech or need information in another format?
- 04What activities would be available for my relative's specific interests, faith, relationships and preferred way of spending time?
- 05How would you support my relative and our family during end-of-life care and after their death?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole care home, including both the premises and the care provided, and it covered all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 January 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with earlier management and safety problems improved.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 and 30 November 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and meals, and checked care plans, medicines records, risk assessments, complaints and quality audits.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments, respectful care and good support for people with complex health needs.
The report says the home had improved since the September 2015 inspection. Environmental risk assessments and recruitment checks had been strengthened, a registered manager was in post, and quality monitoring systems had been developed.
Complex health needs
The home supported people with complex conditions and worked with health professionals to provide specialist care. Inspectors found examples of people gaining greater independence and avoiding hospital stays.
“People with complex care needs were given excellent care and the service is used as a first point of call for local health commissioners.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people's preferences and communicated in ways suited to each person. Observations showed warm relationships and respect for privacy and dignity.
“Staff treated people as individuals with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised routines and activities
People could choose how they spent their time, decorate their rooms and follow personal interests. Care plans included detailed guidance about individual routines and preferences.
“People received a person centred service that enabled them to live active and meaningful lives in the way they wanted.” from the report
Improved management
A registered manager was in post and the home had introduced stronger audits and risk checks. Staff and relatives described the management as open and supportive.
“At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in all of these areas.” from the report
Staffing tool had occasional shortfalls
needs fixingThe system used to calculate staffing levels did not always give a complete picture. The manager carried out daily checks and increased staffing when needed.
“However, the registered manager had identified that there were sometimes shortfalls in this system” from the report
- 01How do you check each day that staffing levels are enough when the dependency tool shows a shortfall?
- 02How quickly do staff usually answer call bells, and how are delays dealt with?
- 03How will you assess and support my relative's specific complex health needs before they move in?
- 04How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how can our family take part?
- 05What activities and one-to-one support would be available if my relative did not want group activities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and checking whether earlier improvements had been made. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 January 2017 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 Temple Grove Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Outstanding.
- January 2020Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 December 2010.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.