The Grange Retirement Home

People and relatives generally said they were happy with the care and felt safe with staff.

“People and relatives in general confirmed they were happy with the care provided and felt safe being supported by the staff.” from the report

Inspectors saw nursing staff give medicines competently and explain what they were giving.

“We observed competent nursing staff administering medicine. They were knowledgeable and took their time to explain what medicine they were administering to people.” from the report

Staff had safeguarding training and could explain what they should do if they had concerns.

“Staff received regular safeguarding training and they could tell us what action was required of them if they had any safeguarding concerns.” from the report

Inspectors found that people and relatives were involved, and care plans included people's life histories and what mattered to them.

“Care plans detailed life histories of people so staff were aware of what was important to people and they could deliver person-centred care.” from the report

Some medicine protocols gave contradictory instructions. Emergency seizure medicines did not clearly explain which to use first or when to call 999.

“There was a risk staff may misunderstand this contradictory guidance and administer the incorrect dosage.” from the report

Some care plans contradicted each other or did not give enough guidance. Staff, including agency staff, did not always know people's individual risks.

“Some people's care plans had contradicting information throughout about what their risks were and contained insufficient guidance for staff on how to manage them.” from the report

Audits did not reliably identify issues with medicines, care plans, staffing or agency training. Incident records also used generic actions rather than personalised guidance.

“Systems had not been established to have effective oversight of the quality of the service. This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report

Inspectors were not always assured that staff were deployed effectively at night. A person who needed one-to-one support was left without their allocated staff member for a period.

“We were not always assured the deployment of these staff was always effective, for example, the person who was left alone when required 1-2-1 support.” from the report

Staff did not always sign in on fire logs. This could make it harder to account for everyone during an emergency.

“This meant there was a risk of emergency services not knowing who was in the building in the case of an emergency.” from the report