CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Grove -2
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe medicine arrangements, detailed risk assessments and good infection control. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs were assessed and reviewed, staff were trained and supported, and people received help with food, healthcare and healthy living. Consent and best-interest decisions were handled in line with the law.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in everyday choices and supported to develop independence through activities such as cooking and cleaning.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and staff understood people’s communication methods, interests and preferences. People were supported to take part in activities, keep in touch with relatives and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The house manager was providing strong day-to-day support, but the registered manager had little oversight and was not up to date with some guidance and legislation. Shared vehicles sometimes restricted people’s access to the community.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but the home’s leadership and access to the community needed improvement.
Inspectors visited the home on 13, 16 and 17 January 2020. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
People were safe and received effective, caring and responsive support. Staff knew people well, promoted independence and supported activities, healthcare, communication and personal choices. The home had improved since its previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement overall.
The well-led rating remained Requires Improvement. The registered manager had limited oversight and was not up to date with some guidance. Shared vehicles and the home’s location also sometimes limited access to the community. The overall rating was Good, but this does not mean every area was equally strong.
Kind and individual care
Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness and respect. Inspectors saw a positive and calm atmosphere.
“We saw staff talking with people with kindness and respect.” from the report
People’s safety
There were enough trained staff, detailed risk assessments and safe medicine systems. Recruitment checks were also described as robust.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about food, clothes, daily activities and care. Staff helped people build daily living skills.
“People were able to make choices such as what to eat, what to wear and where to go during the day.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in activities based on their interests, both at the home and in the community. Staff also helped people stay in contact with relatives.
“People were supported to take part in activities which they were interested in.” from the report
Limited management oversight
needs fixingThe registered manager was rarely present and had limited understanding of some current guidance and legislation. The house manager was also due to leave, so the home needed to show how improvements would continue.
“The registered manager was rarely present at the service and left the house manager to manage the day to day running of the service.” from the report
- 01How will day-to-day leadership and oversight be maintained after the house manager leaves?
- 02Who is responsible for keeping the registered manager up to date with current guidance and legislation?
- 03What changes are being made so people can access the community when they choose?
- 04How are the shared vehicles allocated between the three services on the site?
- 05How will you check that the improvements made since the previous inspection continue?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the overall rating improving from Requires Improvement to Good; Well-led remained Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 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 2019
The Grove -2 was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and good staff training, but concerns about safety guidance, staff interaction, records and management oversight.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection carried out over visits on 1 October, 10 October and 16 November 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff, and checked care records, medicines, audits and other records.
The home was rated Good for Effective. Staff were trained, people were supported with food, drink and healthcare, and staff followed the Mental Capacity Act. Medicines, infection control, recruitment and staffing were also found to be safe.
The other four areas were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that staff did not always follow risk assessments, some people had too little interaction, complaints were not acted on properly, records were hard to follow, and management checks had missed important problems. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff to support people safely. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“There were sufficient numbers of appropriately skilled staff on duty to support people safely.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered as prescribed and records checked during the inspection had no unexplained gaps.
“Medicines were managed safely and administered as prescribed and in a way that met people's individual preferences.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff received training linked to people's specific needs, as well as regular supervision and appraisals.
“Staff received an induction process and on-going training.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, used different ways to communicate and supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“People were supported by staff who knew each person well and had a kind, respectful approach.” from the report
Activities and interests
People were supported to take part in day services, community activities, holidays and interests such as sport and music.
“People were supported to follow their interests.” from the report
Safety guidance was not always followed
seriousStaff did not always follow people's risk assessments. Some records had handwritten changes and crossing out, making current guidance difficult to identify.
“However, staff did not always follow risk assessments.” from the report
Too little interaction
needs fixingInspectors saw people left without staff interaction for long periods, including one person who was alone for almost two hours despite being described as sociable.
“People were left for long periods without staff interaction.” from the report
Complaints were not acted on
needs fixingComplaints recorded in people's support records were not transferred to the formal complaints log or followed up. Staff did not use known signs of dissatisfaction effectively.
“Complaints from people using the service had not been managed or recorded sufficiently.” from the report
Out-of-date care records
needs fixingSupport plans and risk assessments had not been fully rewritten since 2015. Changes were handwritten, which made it difficult to find current information.
“Support plans and risk assessments had not been fully reviewed since 2015, and where changes had taken place, these had been handwritten.” from the report
Weak management checks
needs fixingThe registered manager had limited involvement in day-to-day running. Audits and monitoring visits did not identify several problems quickly enough.
“Systems to monitor the quality of the service did not identify some issues at the service that required improvement.” from the report
End of life information was old
needs fixingSome end of life and funeral wishes were more than 10 years old and may no longer have reflected people's wishes.
“However, this information was more than 10 years old in some instances and people's needs and preferences may have changed in this time.” from the report
- 01Have all support plans and risk assessments now been rewritten, and how do you check that staff follow the current guidance?
- 02How will you make sure people receive regular interaction and support with activities when they are at home?
- 03How are complaints and signs of dissatisfaction recorded, investigated and used to improve the home?
- 04Have each person's end of life and funeral wishes been reviewed and agreed with them or the people involved in their care?
- 05How often is the registered manager present, and how are problems found through audits followed up?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 January 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 Grove -2
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 March 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 Central Bedfordshire
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. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.