CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Grove -4
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, visiting and COVID-19 staffing measures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 13 January 2022. The inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
The inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, arranged testing, supported social distancing and kept its infection control policy up to date. They were also assured that visits were being supported in line with current guidance.
The home was supporting seven people. The inspection did not give an overall quality rating, and the Safe question was recorded as inspected but not rated.
Infection control
The inspectors were assured that the home had measures to prevent and manage infections, including appropriate PPE, testing and hygiene practices.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had measures for visitors and was facilitating visits in line with the guidance in force at the time.
“We were assured the provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report
Contact and activities
During lockdowns, people were supported to stay in touch with family and friends and to continue interests and social activities where restrictions allowed.
“During lockdowns people had been supported to stay in contact with friends and families using video and telephone calls.” from the report
Staff support
Staff said they felt supported during the pandemic and had the training needed to support people safely.
“Staff told us they felt well supported during the pandemic and had the training necessary to support people safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are COVID-19-related staffing pressures affecting people's support now?
- 02What are the current rules for visiting the home?
- 03How are PPE, testing and infection control arrangements being managed now?
- 04How are people currently supported to keep in touch with family and friends?
- 05How are people supported to continue their interests and social activities?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide a full rating of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 January 2022 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 2020
The Grove -4 is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and basic safety measures, but people were not consistently supported to have choice, independence and meaningful activities.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 7 January 2020. One inspector observed care, spoke with relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home supported seven adults with a learning disability or autism. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable premises, support with health needs and medicines, and staff who knew people well. However, staff did not always follow risk assessments or apply their training in practice.
People were not consistently helped to make choices, build daily living skills, access the community or try new activities. The home remained rated Requires Improvement in all five areas. This was the second consecutive Requires Improvement rating.
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's preferences and communication methods. People appeared happy and relaxed with staff, and relatives were generally positive about the care.
“Other interactions were positive and staff members had got to know people well as individuals.” from the report
Health support
People were supported to attend health appointments and to live healthily. Information from health professionals was included in care plans and shared with staff.
“People were supported to see health professionals such as GP's dentists, opticians and speech and language therapists (SALT).” from the report
Communication support
People could use pictures, photos and objects to communicate. Easy-read information was available for people who needed it.
“People were supported to communicate using photo, pictures or objects.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Staff were trained to give medicines and had regular competency checks. Clear instructions were available for medicines given when needed.
“Staff completed regular audits of medicines to ensure that they were administered correctly.” from the report
A risk assessment was not followed
seriousA person at risk of choking was briefly able to take unsafe food from another person when staff were not present. Staff intervened quickly, but the risk assessment had not been followed.
“Staff were not following this person's risk assessment stating that staff should be present in the dining room to support this person to only eat food which is safe for them.” from the report
Limited activities and outings
needs fixingPeople were not consistently supported to go out, take part in activities or try new interests. The home's isolated location and limited transport links made this harder.
“Other than going to a local day service or an occasional pre-booked community activity, there was little for people to do.” from the report
Independence was not promoted
needs fixingStaff sometimes did household tasks that people could have done with support. This left some people without meaningful things to do.
“People's support plans identified areas such as hoovering or preparing meals which people could do independently with staff support.” from the report
Weak oversight of staff practice
seriousThe provider and manager did not monitor closely enough whether staff applied their training or supported people in line with best practice. This was a breach of Regulation 17.
“There was limited oversight of how staff were supervising people to achieve good outcomes.” from the report
Some interactions lacked respect
needs fixingInspectors saw staff talking over people about household tasks and one person being hurried. Other interactions were positive, but practice was inconsistent.
“Some staff members would talk to each other over people being supported about tasks which needed to be completed around the house.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure staff follow people's risk assessments, especially where there is a choking risk?
- 02How many staff are available for community outings, and how often can each person now go out?
- 03How do you check that staff support people to develop daily living skills instead of doing tasks for them?
- 04What new activities and interests have people tried since this inspection, and how are the results recorded?
- 05How are staff observations and supervisions now used to improve the quality of support?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; Safe, Responsive and Well-led remained Requires Improvement, while Effective and Caring fell from Good to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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.
Every inspection of The Grove -4
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 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.