Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Heera Care

The Grange

Everest Road, Scunthorpe, DN16 3EF

Requires improvementpublished 21 October 2023, 2 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Inspectors found problems with medicines storage and stock control, waste handling, infection control and records about safety incidents. They also found enough staff, safe recruitment and staff who understood safeguarding.
Effective?
Good
This question was not assessed during this focused inspection.
Caring?
Good
This question was not assessed during this focused inspection.
Responsive?
Good
This question was not assessed during this focused inspection.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Management systems did not reliably monitor quality, risks or regulatory records. People and relatives' views were not gathered regularly, although staff said they felt supported and could raise concerns.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, October 2023

The Grange rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found weaknesses in medicines, infection control and management oversight, although staffing and people's sense of safety were positive.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 September 2023. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care and management records.

The home had problems with medicines storage and stock checks. Soiled laundry and clinical waste were not always handled promptly or correctly. Records about accidents, safeguarding concerns and notifications to the CQC did not match, and the home was not showing enough evidence that it learned from incidents.

People said they felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and staff who understood safeguarding. Staff administering medicines were trained and competent. However, the overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement because safety and management systems were not reliable enough.

What inspectors praised
  • Enough staff

    Inspectors found enough suitable staff to meet people's needs. Care was provided calmly and without rushing.

    There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to support people's care needs.from the report
  • Staff understood safeguarding

    Staff knew how to recognise and report possible abuse. People told inspectors they felt safe.

    Staff were knowledgeable about how to report abuse and how to identify possible safeguarding concerns.from the report
  • Safe recruitment

    The home carried out checks before employing staff to help ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

    The service undertook a range of checks to seek assurance that potential employees were safe to work with vulnerable people.from the report
  • Working with professionals

    The home worked with health professionals involved in people's care, including GPs, district nurses and physiotherapists.

    The service worked closely with health professionals such as GPs, District Nurses, and physiotherapists.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicines controls

    serious

    Medicines were not always stored, checked or disposed of safely. Inspectors found no temperature monitoring for the medicines room and inconsistent stock control.

    The service did not always follow relevant national guidelines around storing medicines and disposing of them.from the report
  • Poor learning from incidents

    serious

    The home did not consistently investigate accidents, falls and near misses or record improvements. This meant repeated risks might not be properly addressed.

    There was no evidence of an overarching view of these.from the report
  • Inconsistent safety records

    serious

    Records about accidents, safeguarding concerns and matters reported to the local authority and CQC did not match. An earlier recommendation about safeguarding reporting had not led to improvement.

    At this inspection we found discrepancies between the provider's recording systems in relation to safeguarding concerns, concerns reported to the Local Authority, and those reported to the Care Quality Commission.from the report
  • Infection control gaps

    needs fixing

    Inspectors were not assured that the home was helping people minimise infection spread or that hygiene and premises layout were promoting safety. Records for cleaning, PPE and laundry checks were also incomplete.

    We were not assured that the provider was supporting people living at the service to minimise the spread of infection.from the report
  • Limited feedback

    needs fixing

    People and relatives' views had not been gathered regularly, and questionnaires were not formally analysed. The provider was asked to review its feedback arrangements.

    Although a management feedback check had taken place, it was not evident that people or relatives' views had been sought since our last inspection visit.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What checks are now made on medicines-room temperature, medicine stock and medicines awaiting disposal?
  2. 02How do you review repeated falls, accidents and near misses, and how do you record the changes made?
  3. 03How are safeguarding concerns recorded and checked against reports sent to the local authority and CQC?
  4. 04What has changed in cleaning, PPE and laundry checks since the inspection?
  5. 05How will you regularly collect and analyse feedback from people and relatives?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were not assessed in this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 October 2023 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 story over the years

Every inspection of The Grange

3 rated inspections over a year: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. October 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at The Grange

  2. October 2022Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

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

  3. May 2022Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. December 2020Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. November 2020

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 November 2020.

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 Heera Care Ltd

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

Norwood House

Scunthorpe, DN15
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 2 years agoReport explained
Nearby

Other care homes near Scunthorpe

Edmund House

Scunthorpe, DN16 · 0.4 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home

Cherry Tree House

Scunthorpe, DN16 · 0.4 km
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home

Warley House

Scunthorpe, DN16 · 0.7 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 8 years agocare home