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 staff, suitable recruitment checks, clear risk assessments and safe medicines management. The home was clean and accidents were reviewed when they occurred.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff received training and support, and people were helped with food, healthy choices, healthcare and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Relatives said staff were kind and understanding. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, respected their privacy and supported them to develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised around people's routines, interests and communication needs. People took part in chosen activities and could maintain contact with relatives.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team used regular audits covering areas such as medicines, care planning, infection control and building maintenance. Relatives and staff gave positive comments about communication and management.
What inspectors found, November 2019
The Grove was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas they assessed.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 19 September 2019. One inspector reviewed care records, staff files, medicines, recruitment, training and quality checks. They also observed care and spoke with two relatives and two care staff.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe medicines management, detailed individual care plans and good support with health, food, activities and independence.
People were treated with kindness and dignity. Staff knew people's routines, communication methods and preferences. The home helped people take part in activities, develop skills and maintain relationships.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating and the same rating in every area as at the previous inspection published in May 2017.
Personalised support
Care records contained detailed information about people's routines, preferences, hobbies and interests. Staff used this information to provide individualised care.
“Care records were individualised and contained a lot of information about people's routines, preferences, hobbies and interests.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were supported to gain skills and do as much as possible for themselves. Their care plans identified which parts of tasks they could complete independently.
“People were supported to develop and gain new skills and to carry out as many tasks as possible independently.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Relatives described staff as kind and understanding. Inspectors observed respectful care and found that staff understood people's routines and behaviour.
“Relatives told us staff treated their family member with kindness and understanding.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs and found medicines were managed, monitored and administered safely.
“Medicines were managed, monitored and administered safely.” from the report
Active lives and relationships
People took part in clubs, day services and other activities linked to their interests. Relatives could visit or speak with their family member without restriction.
“People were supported to take part in activities of their choice and to live full and active lives.” from the report
Strong oversight
The home used regular audits to check care, medicines, infection control, equipment and the building. These systems were judged capable of identifying improvements.
“There was a robust quality assurance system in place which was capable of identifying areas for improvement.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you keep my relative's individual routines, preferences and communication methods up to date?
- 02What extra checks are now used following the recent change to the medicines administration system?
- 03How will you involve my relative and our family in care planning if my relative cannot communicate verbally?
- 04Which activities and opportunities to develop independence would be available for my relative?
- 05How will you keep us informed about healthcare appointments, changes in needs or incidents?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 November 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.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found the home remained safe, caring and well run.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 25 and 28 April 2017. The inspector observed care, spoke with relatives and health professionals, talked with staff and managers, and reviewed care, staff and management records.
The home supported five people with a learning disability who could not communicate their views verbally. Inspectors found that risks and medicines were managed safely, staffing was suitable, and staff had appropriate training and support.
People received personalised care, support with food, health appointments and activities, and were encouraged to make choices and stay independent. Staff were described as kind and respectful, and relatives and professionals felt able to raise concerns.
The home was rated Good in all five areas and overall. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection.
Managing risks
Risk assessments were comprehensive and included steps to reduce risks without unnecessarily restricting freedom and independence.
“Risks to people continued to be managed well and staff were proactive in reducing risks to people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people well, treated them kindly and respected their need for privacy and personal space.
“We observed that staff respected people's right to space and privacy.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records reflected people's hobbies, interests, preferences and life history. People were supported to take part in activities and maintain independence.
“The service continued to ensure that people's care records were personalised to include information about them, such as their hobbies, interests, preferences and life history.” from the report
Open management
Relatives, staff and professionals were invited to share feedback. Audits and checks were used to identify and address issues.
“Where shortfalls were identified, records demonstrated that these were acted upon promptly.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you find out and record my relative's choices if they cannot communicate verbally?
- 02How will you support my relative to have privacy and remain as independent as possible?
- 03What activities and community opportunities would be available based on my relative's interests?
- 04How do you review staffing levels when people's needs change or staff are absent?
- 05What progress has been made with the planned more frequent staff supervision and extra training?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the report says the overall rating remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 May 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
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.