CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Grange and Elm Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place, including safe use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning and arrangements for preventing or managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were keeping people safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 7 October 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, following social distancing and shielding rules, arranging testing, and keeping its infection control policy up to date.
They found good practice in visiting arrangements, cleaning, communication and support for people living with dementia. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Safer visiting
Visits took place in outside areas, including a visiting pod, shelters and socially distanced seating. Relatives and friends were told about restrictions and the rules to follow.
“visits from relatives and friends were taking place in the gardens which could be accessed without needing to enter the premises.” from the report
Cleaning
The premises were clean and well maintained. Extra cleaning included frequently touched areas, and staff had recent infection control training.
“The premises were clean and well maintained. Additional cleaning schedules had been introduced” from the report
Communication
Managers gave regular updates about the pandemic and supported people to understand what was happening.
“Managers gave regular updates to residents and staff in the garden.” from the report
Support with dementia
Staff had guidance on communicating while wearing face coverings and preparing people for visits by using photographs and conversations.
“Care staff had guidance in place to prepare people for a visit.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Have the visiting pod, shelters and outside visiting arrangements changed since this inspection?
- 02How often are frequently touched areas such as key code panels and light switches cleaned now?
- 03How are people living with dementia prepared for visits when staff or visitors are wearing face coverings?
- 04How do you arrange testing for residents and staff, and what happens if there is an infection outbreak?
- 05What are the current rules for visitors who need to enter the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 November 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, February 2019
The Grange and Elm Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some medicines records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 30 January 2019. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff and health professionals, observed care, and checked care records, medicines and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and spoke positively about staff, who were described as kind, respectful and supportive.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, regular risk checks, good access to healthcare, suitable food and a varied activity programme. The home also supported people to make choices, maintain relationships and use the community.
Some improvements were needed. Medicines had not always been recorded correctly, some areas needed work so they could be cleaned effectively, and care plans were still being made more personal. The home had identified these issues through its own checks.
People felt safe
Everyone spoken to said they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to report abuse.
“People who used the service were safe. Everyone we spoke with said they felt safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy, choices and relationships.
“We saw that staff respected people's dignity and privacy and treated people with respect and patience.” from the report
Food and choice
People could choose what and when to eat, with food prepared to meet their individual needs and preferences.
“People were offered a nutritious and balanced diet, which met their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Activities and community access
People took part in meaningful activities and were supported to maintain hobbies and use the community, either independently or with staff.
“We found all people who used the service were supported to pursue activities that they enjoyed, that were meaningful to them and promoted their wellbeing.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives, staff and health professionals were encouraged to give feedback. Audits and action plans were used to identify and track improvements.
“There was a clear vision and strategy to deliver high-quality care and support, and promote a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingSome medicines records were incomplete. This included missing signatures, missing records for medicines given when needed, and no explanation for one medicine being given regularly.
“medicines that were given as and when required were not recorded on the back of the medication administration record” from the report
Areas needing environmental work
minorMost areas seen were clean and maintained, but some needed work so they could be cleaned effectively. The home had included this in its environmental improvement plan.
“some areas required some work so they were maintained in a condition that could not be effectively cleaned.” from the report
Care plans becoming more personal
minorCare plans recorded people's needs, but the registered manager was improving them so they included personal decisions and choices more fully.
“the registered manager had acknowledged they could be more person-centred” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines recording since the inspection, and how do you check that staff consistently sign and explain every administration?
- 02Which environmental improvements were identified, and have all areas that could not be cleaned effectively now been completed?
- 03How do you make sure each person's care plan records their own choices, decisions, interests and aspirations?
- 04How are people supported to take part in activities and access the community, both independently and with staff?
- 05How are feedback and complaints from residents and relatives recorded and used to make changes?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five quality areas, including the accommodation and care, with records, medicines, observations and views from people, staff and health professionals reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 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 The Grange and Elm Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 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 99 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnsley
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.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Ivy was very kind and gentle in all her dealings with my late mother. They got on very well and were able to share a joke and a laugh.”
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.