CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Grove Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, July 2018
The Grove Care Centre was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some work needed to improve information for people.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 May 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also checked care records, medicines, staff records, maintenance records and quality checks.
The inspectors rated the home Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. They found enough trained staff, safe medicines support, clean surroundings and suitable risk assessments.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Their care was tailored to their needs, and they were supported with food, healthcare, activities, relationships and end of life wishes.
The report says the home had started improving information for people, including clearer complaints posters and memory boxes to help people living with dementia find their rooms.
Safe care
Risks were identified and care plans told staff how to support people safely. The home also had safeguarding processes and staff knew how to report concerns.
“The risks to people's safety were regularly assessed and measures were in place to reduce risks and promote people's independence.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff received training and regular supervision relevant to their roles.
“People were supported by well-trained and competent staff in sufficient numbers to keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built positive relationships and respected people's dignity, privacy, choices and independence.
“People at the service, and relatives were treated with kindness and care by staff who supported people with respect and dignity, and developed positive relationships with people in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences and needs. People were supported with activities, relationships and their wishes for end of life care.
“People received individualised care and had access to a range of social activities.” from the report
Strong oversight
The management team was visible and approachable. Quality audits were used to identify issues and create action plans.
“There was a robust governance system in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Information could be clearer
minorInspectors discussed improving how information was provided to people. After the inspection, the home reported changes to complaints posters and began introducing memory boxes.
“We discussed how this could be improved with the registered manager.” from the report
- 01How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient when there is short-notice sickness?
- 02How are medicines reviewed when they cause unwanted effects or no longer meet a person's needs?
- 03How will you provide care information and complaints information in a format my relative can understand?
- 04How do you make sure my relative's personal preferences, cultural needs and end of life wishes stay up to date?
- 05How do you use audits, incidents and feedback to make further improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection looking at the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 July 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.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but weaknesses in safety checks, hygiene, medicines storage and management oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 March 2017. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, checked five care records and examined staffing, training and quality records.
People were treated kindly and received care that was tailored to their wishes. Staff supported meals, healthcare, activities and people living with dementia. There were enough staff on duty, and recruitment checks had been completed.
The home was not consistently safe. Inspectors found hazards that could cause accidents, hygiene problems, incomplete training, and medicines not always stored at the right temperature. Quality checks had not reliably identified and fixed these problems.
The overall rating Requires Improvement means the home was meeting some requirements but needed to make important improvements. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking positively with people, respecting private space and providing personal care discreetly.
“We saw that people were treated with compassion, kindness and respect.” from the report
Enough staff
People received help promptly, including when they used call bells or asked for assistance in communal areas.
“We concluded that there were enough care staff on duty because people promptly received practical assistance that met their needs and expectations.” from the report
Good support with food and healthcare
People had meal choices, help with eating and drinking, monitoring of nutrition, and support to see healthcare professionals.
“People had been supported to receive all the healthcare attention they needed.” from the report
Personalised activities and dementia support
People were offered group and individual activities. Staff helped people living with dementia to feel settled and supported.
“We noted that care staff promoted positive outcomes for people who lived with dementia.” from the report
Open staff teamwork
There were handovers, staff meetings and senior cover on shifts. Staff felt able to raise concerns with managers.
“There was an open and relaxed approach to running the service.” from the report
Accident hazards
seriousAn unmarked steep ramp and damaged fixtures created risks of falls or injury. The manager said action would be taken.
“We noted that in one of the hallways there was a steep ramp that was used to change the level of the floor.” from the report
Hygiene shortfalls
seriousTwo bedroom carpets were not clean, and inspectors found problems supporting clean clothing and personal hygiene. Shared hoist slings also increased infection risks.
“These various shortfalls had increased the risk that people would acquire avoidable infections.” from the report
Medicine storage
seriousChecks had not always confirmed that medicines were stored at the correct temperature. This could affect how well medicines worked.
“This mistake increased the risk of medicines not working in the right way that is necessary if people are to fully benefit from them.” from the report
Quality checks were not effective enough
needs fixingThe home's monitoring systems had not found and resolved several problems quickly. Inspectors also found damaged accommodation and a broken toilet door lock.
“Quality checks had not always resulted in problems in the running of the service being quickly put right.” from the report
Bedrooms not easy to recognise
needs fixingMost bedrooms were identified only by numbers. This caused uncertainty for some people living with dementia.
“This arrangement was not helpful for most of the people who lived with dementia and we saw occasions when people became uncertain about which bedroom was theirs.” from the report
Some refresher training incomplete
needs fixingSeveral staff had not completed all the required refresher training, although the home had plans to address this.
“We noted that although several care staff had not completed all of the required training there were plans in place to address this oversight in the near future.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make the steep hallway ramp clearly visible and to remove or repair the sharp damaged fixtures?
- 02How do you now check that medicines are stored at the correct temperature every day?
- 03What changes have been made to cleaning, personal hygiene support and the use of personal hoist slings?
- 04How do your current quality checks identify and fix building, safety and privacy problems quickly?
- 05How are bedrooms now personalised or signposted to help people living with dementia recognise their own room?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions on 7 March 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 April 2017 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 Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.