Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by St. Matthews

Althorp Grange

Holdenby Road, Spratton, Northampton, NN6 8LD

Inadequatepublished 28 February 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Inadequate: inspectors found the service performing badly and the CQC has taken enforcement action.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Inadequate
Inspectors found serious risks in the environment, including ligature risks, blind spots, blocked corridors, poor cleanliness and unsafe equipment checks. Staff did not always manage patient risks, observations, restraint, medicines or infection control safely.
Effective?
Inadequate
The home did not use a recognised rehabilitation model and did not routinely provide education, employment or other rehabilitation opportunities. Some care plans and treatment records were incomplete, copied between records or not developed with patients.
Caring?
Inadequate
Inspectors found that staff did not always show kindness, dignity, privacy, respect or compassion. Patients and carers reported concerns about feeling unsafe, poor communication and care decisions not being shared with them.
Responsive?
Inadequate
The home did not consistently meet patients' individual needs. There were limited quiet areas and private visiting space, limited therapeutic activities, and concerns about food, discharge planning and support for education and employment.
Well-led?
Inadequate
Managers did not have effective oversight of care, safety, incidents, food quality, records, repairs or staff training. Inspectors said previous action plans and improvements had not been sustained.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2024

Althorp Grange is rated Inadequate and in special measures; inspectors found serious risks to safety, care and leadership.

This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection from 19 to 25 July 2023. Inspectors visited six wards, spoke with patients, carers, managers and staff, and reviewed care records, medicines, incidents, observations and governance documents. One ward was not visited.

Inspectors found serious safety problems. These included unmitigated ligature risks, blind spots, blocked corridors, poor cleanliness, damaged furniture, unsafe food storage and gaps in emergency equipment checks. Staff did not always follow safe observation, restraint, medicine and infection control procedures.

Care was not consistently kind, respectful or responsive. Some patients felt unsafe, care plans were not always shared with patients, and there were limited rehabilitation, education, employment and visiting opportunities. Inspectors also found weak management oversight, poor monitoring of incidents and significant gaps in mandatory training.

The overall rating and all five key questions were Inadequate. The home has been placed in special measures and will be inspected again within six months. The report says the provider made further changes after the inspection, but these changes could not be included in this report.

What inspectors praised
  • Multidisciplinary teamwork

    The ward teams had access to the specialists needed and worked well together, including with services involved in aftercare.

    The ward staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with those outside the ward who would have a role in providing aftercare.from the report
  • Mental Health Act processes

    Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Health Act and the home had effective processes for recording the related paperwork.

    Staff understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.from the report
  • Discharge planning

    Inspectors found that discharge was generally planned and that staff worked with services providing aftercare.

    Staff planned and managed discharge well and liaised well with services that would provide aftercare.from the report
  • Access to outdoor space

    Patients had good access to garden areas and fresh air, although access to one garden was controlled by staff.

    There was good access to the garden areas and fresh air.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Serious environmental safety risks

    serious

    Ligature risks and blind spots were not properly reduced. Inspectors also found unsafe corridors, damaged areas and equipment that was not reliably checked.

    The provider had not identified appropriate mitigation for identified ligature risks.from the report
  • Patients did not always feel safe

    serious

    Inspectors found repeated aggression and safeguarding concerns, including risks linked to allergies and sexual vulnerability. Some patients said they felt unsafe and did not receive proper follow-up after incidents.

    Thirteen patients told us that they felt unsafe on the wardsfrom the report
  • Poor care planning and rehabilitation

    needs fixing

    Patients were not always involved in their care plans or given copies. The home did not provide regular rehabilitation opportunities such as education and employment.

    Not all patients had not been fully involved in the development and ongoing monitoring and given a copy of their care plan.from the report
  • Respect and dignity

    serious

    Staff did not always treat patients with compassion, privacy, dignity and respect. The report includes concerns about hurtful, racist and derogatory remarks.

    Staff who had made hurtful, racist, and derogatory remarks to patients.from the report
  • Food and infection control

    needs fixing

    Inspectors found poor food storage, dirty areas, unsuitable clothing and jewellery worn by some staff, and unsafe management of mouse traps in patient areas.

    We found that butter on all wards had been left out of the fridge and stored in cupboards.from the report
  • Weak staff training and management oversight

    serious

    Mandatory training was below the provider's target in several important areas. Managers were not effectively monitoring incidents, records, food, repairs or the quality of care.

    The provider did not have fully effective governance structures and processes to provide oversight and assurance of all aspects of service deliveryfrom the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has been done to remove or properly reduce the ligature risks and blind spots identified on the wards?
  2. 02How are patient observations now carried out and recorded, including when a patient refuses physical health checks after rapid tranquillisation?
  3. 03How are allergies, sexual vulnerability, patient-on-patient assaults and safeguarding concerns now identified, monitored and acted on?
  4. 04How do you make sure every patient helps develop and review their care plan and receives a copy?
  5. 05What regular rehabilitation, education, employment and therapeutic activities are now available, including at weekends and in the evenings?

This was a comprehensive inspection of one acute ward and five rehabilitation wards; Lamport ward was not visited, and the inspection followed previous concerns and action plans. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 2024 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Althorp Grange

6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.

  1. February 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at Althorp Grange

  2. June 2023Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. November 2021Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. April 2021Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. November 2020Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. September 2020Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. May 2020Inadequatedown from Good
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. February 2018Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. October 2016Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. August 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. October 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. April 2012

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 April 2012.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Same provider

Other services run by St. Matthews Limited

6 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Requires improvement
NursingDementia
Rated 2 years agoReport explained

Hawthorne House

Coventry, CV4
Requires improvement
NursingDementia
Rated 23 months agoReport explained

St Matthews Unit

Northampton, NN2
Requires improvement
NursingDementia
Rated 2 years agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Northampton

Meadow View

Northampton, NN2 · 5.7 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 4 years agocare home

Turn Furlong

Northampton, NN2 · 6.3 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 15 months agocare home

Obelisk House

Northampton, NN2 · 6.5 km
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home