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 effective safeguarding, risk management, staffing, recruitment, medicines management and infection control. They identified inconsistent detail in some records after challenging incidents and recommended further review and training.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans reflected their choices. Staff had relevant training, people were supported with food, health appointments and communication, and the home worked within the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated kindly and respectfully. Staff supported people's dignity, communication, independence, choices and involvement in care planning.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reflected people's wishes, communication needs and ambitions. People were supported with activities, family relationships, complaints information and plans for greater independence.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was described as supportive and open, and sought feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals. However, quality monitoring had not identified the inconsistent incident records and staff debriefs.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some inconsistent records after challenging incidents.
This was the first inspection since the home registered. One inspector visited on 13 and 17 May 2021, met the three people living there, spoke with staff and a relative, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were happy, treated with dignity, supported by staff who knew them well, and helped to make choices and build independence.
Medicines, staffing, infection control and safeguarding were found to be safe. Care was personalised, people were supported with health appointments and activities, and relatives and professionals were involved.
Inspectors found that some records about challenging incidents lacked detail. Staff debriefs were not managed consistently, and quality checks had not identified this. The provider was given recommendations to improve these areas.
Kind and knowledgeable staff
People appeared happy and were supported by staff who knew them well. Inspectors found staff were safely recruited and understood people's needs.
“People were observed to be happy and supported by a knowledgeable staff team who knew them well and who were recruited safely.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines records showed that people received medicines at the right times, with support from trained staff whose competence was checked.
“Records showed people received their medicines at the correct times and with the correct level of support from trained staff who had their competency checked by the management team.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in care and future planning and supported to make everyday choices, use community facilities and work towards independent living.
“The model of care and support provided to people living at the home maximised their choice, control and independence.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's voices, preferences and life goals. Staff supported activities, family contact and individual communication needs.
“People received personalised, high-quality care which enabled them to live as full and independent a life as possible.” from the report
Incident records and staff debriefs
needs fixingSome records about incidents involving challenging behaviour did not contain enough detail. Staff debriefs to support reflection and learning were not carried out consistently.
“There was some inconsistencies in the level of information documented following incidents where people had displayed behaviours that were challenging to others.” from the report
Quality checks missed the shortfall
needs fixingThe home's audits had not identified the inconsistent recording and debrief process. Inspectors recommended a review of quality monitoring.
“Quality monitoring of the service was in place. However, this had not identified the inconsistency in some records and debrief sessions with staff following an incident where a person had presented with behaviours that had been challenging.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure records of challenging incidents contain enough detail?
- 02How are staff debriefed after incidents, and how is their learning recorded?
- 03What changes have you made to quality audits since this inspection?
- 04How will you support my relative's communication needs, choices and goals for independence?
- 05How will you keep my relative involved in activities, healthcare and contact with family?
This was the home's first planned inspection and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control during COVID-19; no end of life care was being provided at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 June 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
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 October 2020.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Middlesbrough
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 £1,230 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.