CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Grove
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicines management and systems for learning from accidents and incidents. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and the home was clean and free from hazards.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff received training, supervision and appraisal. People were supported with food, healthcare, independence and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness and respect, knew them well and supported their choices. People were helped to maintain important relationships and access advocacy when needed.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's preferences, interests and goals. Information was available in accessible formats, complaints were recorded and investigated, and end-of-life wishes were documented.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks were effective and the registered manager was visible and approachable. However, some statutory notifications were not submitted on time, and plans to improve the environment had been delayed.
What inspectors found, February 2019
The Grove rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the well-led rating fell to Requires Improvement because important notifications were not sent on time.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive visit on 4 January 2019. They spoke with four people, the registered manager and two care staff. They also checked care records, medicines, staff training and the home's quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, person-centred care, support with health needs, and a strong focus on choice, independence and relationships.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The registered manager had not sent some legally required notifications to the CQC on time, including safeguarding incidents and three Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations. The overall rating stayed Good, but the home needed to improve its oversight and complete planned environmental work.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely. People were also supported to become more independent in taking their medicines where appropriate.
“People could be assured that their medicines would be managed safely.” from the report
Promoting independence
The home helped people build skills, pursue goals and prepare for greater independence, including moving to their own home.
“People were enabled to be as independent as possible in the administration of medicines and some people were receiving support to work towards managing their medicines independently.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's interests, histories and aspirations. They supported people to take part in community activities and maintain important relationships.
“People were treated with kindness and respect by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Person-centred support
People were involved in planning their care and were supported to follow their interests and make everyday choices.
“People's care was planned and provided in a way that encouraged and maintained their independence.” from the report
Late statutory notifications
seriousThe registered manager had not told the CQC about some safeguarding incidents and three Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations within the required timescale. This limited the CQC's ability to monitor safety and quality.
“The registered manager had not submitted statutory notifications to the Commission as required.” from the report
Delayed environmental improvements
needs fixingSome areas needed redecoration and updating. Inspectors said the existing improvement plans had been in development for some time and should now be completed promptly.
“However, the plans to improve the general environment to redecorate areas of the home had been in development for some time.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure all statutory notifications, including safeguarding incidents and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations, are sent to the CQC on time?
- 02Has the planned redecoration and updating of the home been completed? If not, what is the timetable?
- 03How will you help my relative develop independence and work towards their personal goals?
- 04How are medicines managed, and can residents work towards managing their own medicines if this is suitable?
- 05How will my relative be involved in planning and reviewing their care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, with the overall rating remaining Good but Well-led changing to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 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 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 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 Worcestershire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.