CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Grove Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines were not always stored, recorded or administered safely, and there was limited evidence that the home learned from accidents and falls. Risk assessments, recruitment checks, safeguarding arrangements, maintenance and most infection controls were positive.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection, although inspectors observed positive interactions and people spoke positively about their support.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits and quality checks did not always identify or address problems, and action plans were incomplete. The manager was visible and approachable, and people and staff were positive about the management.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicines management and weak oversight, although people generally felt safe and well cared for.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 7 and 8 February 2023. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led after concerns about risk management, infection control, staffing, medicines and management oversight. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, checked records and inspected the home.
Medicines were not always managed safely. Records did not always match stock, checks after giving ‘as required’ medicines were incomplete, and medicines were seen left unsecured and unattended. Audits had not found these problems. The home was also not consistently recording lessons from accidents, incidents and falls.
People said they felt safe and well looked after. Staff recruitment, safeguarding training, risk assessments, infection control and the home’s maintenance were generally positive. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in January 2020, to Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and well looked after. Relatives also described having peace of mind about the care.
“People we spoke with told us they felt safe at the service.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The home had completed the required pre-employment checks in the staff files inspectors reviewed.
“Staff were recruited safely. Recruitment files showed all pre-employment checks had been made to ensure only staff who were suitable to work with people were employed.” from the report
Risk planning
Risk assessments were in place, kept up to date and reviewed regularly. They gave staff guidance about the support people needed.
“Risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly to minimise risks.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
Inspectors saw positive interactions, and people appeared happy and relaxed with staff. The manager was described as approachable.
“There was a positive atmosphere and people were happy and relaxed being supported by staff.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousMedicine stock and administration records did not always agree. Inspectors also found incomplete ‘as required’ medicine observations and saw medicines left unsecured and unattended.
“Stock levels were not always accurate. This meant we could not be assured that medicines had been given as signed for by staff on the medicine's administration record.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingAudits did not always identify or correct problems. Action plans did not consistently say what needed to happen, by when or who was responsible.
“Audits and monitoring arrangements were in place for a range of areas including, care plans, medicines and infection control. However, these were not always effective in monitoring the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Lessons from incidents were not clear
needs fixingThe home recorded incidents and accidents, but did not consistently analyse them to show themes, trends or lessons learned.
“There was minimal evidence to support learning lessons from accidents, incidents or falls which had occurred at the service.” from the report
Staffing feedback was mixed
needs fixingPeople and staff gave mixed feedback about whether staffing levels met people’s needs. The provider added staff immediately while it reviewed people’s needs.
“We received mixed feedback from people and staff in relation to appropriate staffing levels to meet people's needs.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine stock checks and administration records since the inspection?
- 02How are medicines now kept secure while they are being administered?
- 03How do you record observations after giving ‘as required’ medicines?
- 04What system now shows who is responsible for each improvement, and when it must be completed?
- 05How do you review accidents, incidents and falls to identify lessons and prevent repetition?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 2023 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 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, with some further development suggested.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 11 February 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control because of the COVID-19 outbreak response.
Inspectors found the home was clean and hygienic. They were assured that PPE, testing, visiting arrangements, social distancing, shielding, admissions and outbreak procedures were being managed safely.
Staff supported people's social and emotional wellbeing through activities and contact with family and friends. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Clean environment
The home was clean and hygienic. Extra domestic hours supported deeper cleaning and the cleaning of frequently touched areas.
“The service was clean and hygienic. Additional domestic hours had been provided to support more regular deep cleaning and the cleaning of high touch areas.” from the report
PPE arrangements
There were good supplies and accessible PPE stations. Staff had been trained to put on and remove PPE, with checks by senior staff.
“All staff had completed training on the donning and doffing (putting in and taking off) of PPE, and spot checks were completed by senior staff to ensure staff complied with the guidance.” from the report
COVID-19 monitoring
People and staff took part in regular COVID-19 testing and the vaccination programme. Processes were in place if someone developed symptoms.
“Staff and people who used the service were taking part in the regular COVID-19 testing and the vaccination programme.” from the report
Keeping people connected
Staff supported people's social and emotional wellbeing through activities and arrangements to keep in touch with family and friends.
“Staff supported people's social and emotional wellbeing. There was a varied activity programme and measures were in place to ensure they kept in touch with family and friends.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not say what specific improvement was needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made since inspectors signposted you to resources to develop your infection prevention and control approach?
- 02How are high-touch areas and deeper cleaning managed now?
- 03How do you currently test visitors before entry, and what PPE must they use?
- 04How are people and staff monitored and tested if someone develops COVID-19 symptoms?
- 05What activities and arrangements are currently available to help residents keep in touch with family and friends?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the report did not assess the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 2021 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 Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- February 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 September 2014.
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
12 live-in carers within about an hour of North East 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.
Most charge £980 to £1,350 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“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.”
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.