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
- People's risks were identified, assessed and reviewed. There were enough staff, medicines records had improved, and infection control arrangements were judged suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care from staff who were described as competent and knowledgeable. Training had been delayed, and a small number of staff still needed to complete necessary training.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not examined during this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not examined during this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management had become more stable and audits were being used to identify and address problems. However, provider visits were not recorded and staff communication equipment remained unreliable.
What inspectors found, April 2022
The Grove rated Good; inspectors found safer, more consistent care after earlier concerns, but staff communication equipment still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 6 April 2022. Inspectors spoke with five people, six care staff, managers and two visiting healthcare professionals. They reviewed medicines, three care plans, staff recruitment records and the home's audits.
The home was supporting 31 people and had enough permanent and agency staff to meet people's needs. People said they felt safe and happy. Inspectors found improvements in care planning, medicines records, risk management, infection control and communication with healthcare professionals.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Good. The inspection did not examine Caring or Responsive, so previous ratings for those areas were carried forward.
Improved care and oversight
Healthcare professionals reported recent improvements and said the home responded promptly when they had concerns.
“They take advice and carry out any care required. We have no concerns” from the report
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on duty, with less reliance on agency workers. Call bells were answered promptly.
“Staff and people told us there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. Call bells were answered in a timely way.” from the report
Better care records
The home had moved care plans to an electronic system. Inspectors found that risks, reviews and care provided were being recorded more effectively.
“The service was now fully transferred from paper to using electronic recording for people's care plans.” from the report
Medicines records
The medicine administration records reviewed had no gaps, and audits were identifying improvements.
“Paper based medicine administration records (MARs) were completed following administration. There were no gaps in the records reviewed.” from the report
Unreliable staff communication equipment
needs fixingWalkie-talkies were sometimes not working, not used or unavailable. The provider was asked to review or upgrade the system.
“The batteries did not last for more than one shift and they were often dropped or found not to be functioning, so there were not always sufficient numbers of them for all staff to carry.” from the report
Outstanding staff training
needs fixingTraining had been delayed by the pandemic and a Covid-19 outbreak. Once records were brought together, a small number of staff still needed necessary training.
“Once this information was viewable in one document it was clear a small number of staff did need to complete necessary training.” from the report
Medicine storage
needs fixingInspectors recommended reviewing the storage of medicines requiring stricter controls so it complied with current legislation.
“We recommend the provider should review the storage arrangements for medicines that require stricter controls to ensure that they are kept in line with current legislation.” from the report
Changes to meals
minorThe home had struggled to recruit a chef. Some people noticed changes in the quality of meals while kitchen staff changed, although a new chef was due to start.
“People told us they had noticed a change in the meals provided by different staff.” from the report
- 01What has been done to replace or repair the walkie-talkie system, and how will staff communicate if it stops working?
- 02Which staff still need training, and when will all outstanding training be completed?
- 03How are medicines requiring stricter controls stored, and what changes are being made after the CQC recommendation?
- 04Has the new chef started, and how are residents' views about the quality and choice of meals being checked?
- 05Has the manager completed registration with CQC, and how are provider visits and follow-up actions now recorded?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not examined and their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 April 2022 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, December 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found clear progress, but medicines records, communication systems and management still needed work.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 07 December 2021. Inspectors checked Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and managers, and reviewed medicines, care plans, staff files and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Risks were assessed more appropriately, staffing and recruitment had improved, accidents and incidents were reviewed, and infection control arrangements were satisfactory. People generally felt the home was calmer and management was more approachable.
There were still gaps. Some medicines records were not fully signed, guidance for medicines given when needed was not always available, and staff did not always have enough communication handsets. Some people also experienced delays in receiving care. The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. Well-led improved from Inadequate to Requires Improvement.
Risk management
People's individual risks were assessed, monitored and reviewed. Staff had guidance on how to manage known risks while supporting independence.
“People's individual risks had been appropriately identified, assessed, monitored and reviewed.” from the report
Staff responsiveness
Inspectors saw staff respond to requests for help and call bells. Staff also had time to engage with people.
“During our inspection we saw staff were responsive to requests for assistance and call bells were answered.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home had improved how it recorded and reviewed accidents and incidents. It used audits to identify patterns and take action.
“There was evidence the service reflected and learnt from incidents when things go wrong.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for PPE, testing, visits, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Improved management
Management arrangements were clearer than at the previous inspection. People and staff described improvements in communication and the atmosphere.
“Since the previous inspection there has been improvement in how the service was managed.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingSome medicines administration records were missing staff signatures. Instructions for medicines given when needed were not always detailed enough to support consistent decisions.
“However, we did find some gaps on MARs where staff had not signed to say a medicine had been given.” from the report
Delays when staffing changed
needs fixingStaff absences at short notice could reduce staffing on some shifts. Staff said people's care and support might then be delayed.
“Staff told us at these times peoples care and support might be delayed.” from the report
Management registration
needs fixingA manager was in post, but had not yet registered with the CQC. The provider remained legally responsible for how the home was run.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Audits and records
minorAuditing and electronic care records were improving but still had gaps. The report recommended further work to show issues and actions clearly.
“We recommend the service continues to improve auditing systems to ensure there is evidence of issues identified and action to be taken.” from the report
- 01How are missing signatures on medicines records now identified and corrected?
- 02What written guidance is available for medicines given when needed, and how do you check staff follow it?
- 03How many communication handsets are available on each shift, and when will the replacement system be in place?
- 04What cover is arranged when staff are absent at short notice, and how do you prevent delays to people's care?
- 05Has the manager now submitted and completed the CQC registration application?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, with infection control included under Safe; the other ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 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
10 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: Requires improvement
- November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodEffective: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.