CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were being followed.
The CQC visited the home on 4 and 5 November 2020 as part of a coronavirus infection control review. The visit was announced and focused on how the home was preventing and managing infections.
Inspectors found effective social distancing, regular cleaning and appropriate use of protective equipment. Staff and visiting health professionals had temperature checks, and staff took part in COVID-19 testing.
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends through video calls and window visits where restrictions allowed. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Social distancing
Furniture in communal areas had been rearranged so people could sit apart from one another.
“The home had implemented social distancing measures effectively.” from the report
Cleaning and infection control
The home regularly cleaned frequently touched areas and equipment to help prevent infection spreading.
“Staff managed infection control well. The service carried out regular cleaning of touch point areas and equipment to prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
Staff were following government guidance on protective equipment. Protective equipment was available where it was needed, and staff engaged with COVID-19 testing.
“Staff were seen to be following the current government guidance in relation to the personal protective equipment (PPE) being used and engaged fully in the testing for COVID-19.” from the report
Family contact
People could keep in touch with family and friends through video technology. Window visits were also arranged where local restrictions allowed.
“People living at the home were supported to maintain contact with their families and friends via video technology and window visits were facilitated where local lockdown restrictions allowed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are infection prevention and control arrangements different now from those seen in November 2020?
- 02How often are communal areas, frequently touched surfaces and equipment cleaned?
- 03How do you manage testing and protective equipment for staff, visitors and people moving into the home?
- 04What visiting arrangements are currently available for families?
- 05What evidence can you provide about the other areas of care that this focused inspection did not assess?
This was an announced thematic review focused on infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 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, October 2018
Rated Good overall, but the home was rated Requires Improvement for safety because of its tired environment and delays in responding to people.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 September 2018. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed daily care and checked care files, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home remained Good overall, as well as for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led care. People said they felt safe and described staff as kind, respectful and caring. Inspectors found that people's care needs, medicines, nutrition and access to healthcare were generally managed well.
Safety was rated Requires Improvement. Some floors, equipment, carpets, chair covers and the laundry room were damaged or poorly maintained. Staff were available in sufficient numbers, but people did not always receive help promptly because staff were also doing cleaning and laundry.
The provider sent CQC an action plan after the inspection, with areas for improvement and completion dates. This inspection found that the overall rating stayed Good, but the safe rating had fallen from Good at the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with warmth, patience and respect. Staff knew people's needs and preferences well.
“We saw that staff respected people's dignity and privacy and treated people with respect and patience.” from the report
Safe medicines and recruitment
Medicines were stored and managed safely, with checks in place. Recruitment records included references and the required background checks.
“The service had a robust staff recruitment system. All staff had references and DBS checks were carried out.” from the report
Good understanding of people's needs
Care plans contained detailed information about people's health, communication, mobility, nutrition and social needs. Staff could explain how they supported individuals.
“Staff had a very good knowledge of people's needs and preferences, and understood each person's individual personalities well.” from the report
People's views were included
Residents had regular meetings and opportunities to suggest activities and meals. Staff also had meetings and daily handovers to share information.
“Resident meetings took place regularly throughout the year to enable people to feel part of the planning to improve the service.” from the report
Poor condition of parts of the building
seriousDamaged flooring created a trip risk. Equipment, carpets, chair covers and the laundry room were also damaged, rusty or difficult to keep clean.
“The service was clean; however, areas were not well maintained so could not be effectively cleaned.” from the report
Support was sometimes delayed
needs fixingAlthough there were enough staff overall, people did not always get help promptly. Cleaning and laundry duties sometimes took staff away from care duties.
“However, we saw at times when people required assistance and asked for help or support, staff were not always able to respond in a timely way.” from the report
Activities could be more frequent
minorActivities were described as good when they happened, but some people wanted them to take place more often.
“However, people told the activities could take place more often although when they were delivered they said they were very good.” from the report
Quality checks needed better records
needs fixingThe home had monitoring systems, but some checks were not formally documented. The provider later supplied an action plan with timescales.
“However, we found these were not always formalised and documented.” from the report
- 01Have all the damaged floors, carpets, chair covers, equipment and laundry room problems identified in this report now been repaired?
- 02How are cleaning and laundry duties organised so staff can respond to residents without delay?
- 03What practical first aid training have staff completed since the inspection?
- 04How often are activities now provided, and how are residents' preferences used to plan them?
- 05How are quality checks and improvement actions now recorded and followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good, but the safe rating had fallen to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 October 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.
Every inspection of The Grange
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Stockport
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.