Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at The Granary

Goodpublished 5 December 2018, 7 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, September 2020

Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the coronavirus pandemic.

The inspection took place on 19 August 2020 and was announced. It was a targeted check of infection prevention and control in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Inspectors found that staff used personal protective equipment correctly. The home had signs about visiting restrictions, hand gel and masks for visitors, and arrangements for social distancing and shielding.

People living at the home and staff had been tested for Covid-19, and the latest results were negative. Staff kept in regular contact with relatives and supported people with exercise and activities.

The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit checked infection control only, rather than giving a full rating of the home's overall care.

What inspectors praised
  • Protective equipment

    Staff used protective equipment in line with government guidance. The home also had designated areas for putting on and removing it.

    “Staff were wearing PPE in line with government guidance and designated areas were set up within the service for staff to remove and apply PPE.” from the report
  • Visitor precautions

    The home displayed information about entry restrictions and infection control. Visitors were given hand gel and disposable masks.

    “Sanitising hand gel and disposable face masks were provided.” from the report
  • Testing

    People living at the home and staff had Covid-19 tests. The latest results were negative.

    “Staff and people who used the service were tested for Covid-19; latest swabs showed everyone tested negative.” from the report
  • Contact with relatives

    Staff stayed in regular contact with relatives to support people's wellbeing.

    “The service communicated with relatives to promote people's wellbeing. Staff were in regular contact with relatives.” from the report
  • Wellbeing activities

    People were supported to exercise and take part in activities during the pandemic.

    “People were supported to take regular exercise and join in activities to maintain their wellbeing.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What are the current rules for visiting the home, and what infection control steps must visitors follow?
  2. 02How are staff and people living here tested for Covid-19 or other infections now?
  3. 03How do staff make sure protective equipment is available and used safely?
  4. 04How will you keep me in regular contact with my relative if visiting is restricted?
  5. 05What exercise and activities are available to support my relative's wellbeing?

This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full assessment of the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 September 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2018

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with a medicines recording issue corrected during the visit.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 22 and 26 October 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff, the manager and visiting professionals. They also reviewed care records, staff files, training records and quality checks.

The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines, staffing, safeguarding, infection control and accident reporting were managed safely. They also found detailed care planning, suitable training and support for people's health and nutrition.

People were treated with dignity and respect and were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities. The home had a complaints process and regular feedback was positive. Inspectors found that the overall Good rating from March 2016 continued to be supported.

What inspectors praised
  • Safe medicines support

    Staff understood people's medicines and the systems for managing them. Care plans included medicine information.

    “Medicine information had been included in people's plan of care and staff were knowledgeable about people's medicines.” from the report
  • Respect and dignity

    People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported privacy, independence, communication and important relationships.

    “The relationships between staff and people receiving support demonstrated dignity and respect.” from the report
  • Choice and activities

    People were supported to choose activities, take part in community life and maintain their independence.

    “People had access to a range of regular activities which met their wider needs.” from the report
  • Regular oversight

    The management team carried out regular audits and the provider made unannounced visits. Action plans had timescales and were updated when completed.

    “There was a quality monitoring system in place to help monitor and drive improvements to the care people received.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicines records needed improvement

    minor

    Inspectors found that recording room temperatures and disposing of medicines could be improved. The manager acted on this immediately during the inspection.

    “We discussed with the registered manager where systems in place for the recording of room temperatures and the disposal of medicines could be improved and this was actioned immediately by the registered manager.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are room temperatures for medicines recorded now, and who checks the records?
  2. 02How are unwanted or discontinued medicines disposed of and recorded?
  3. 03How will you involve my relative in their care plan and regular reviews?
  4. 04What activities could my relative choose, and how would you support their independence?
  5. 05How would you support my relative's communication, health needs and food and drink choices?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home; the report says the Good ratings continued from the previous inspection in March 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of The Granary

3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at The Granary →

  2. December 2018Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at The Granary →

  3. March 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. April 2016Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. February 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. March 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. February 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. December 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire

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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.

“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
Beatrice N., about Rosemary H.
“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.”
Lucy K., about Emma H.
See live-in carers near East Riding of YorkshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.