You are here

Archived: Pexton Grange Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 30 March 2015

Pexton Grange provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 57 people. The home is divided into 3 floors, one dedicated to nursing care for older people, one to rehabilitation support for adults of any age and the third to supporting older people living with dementia. Intermediate care beds are provided on each floor. All of the bedrooms are single. A garden and car park are provided. The home is close to bus routes to the city centre.

There was a manager at the service who was registered with CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Our last inspection at Pexton Grange took place on 08 July 2013. The service was found to be meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected at that time.

This inspection took place on 26 January 2015 and was unannounced, which meant the provider and staff did not know we would be visiting. On the day of our inspection there were 56 people living at Pexton Grange.

People told us they were well cared for by staff that knew them well, and they felt safe.

Relatives told us their loved ones were well cared for and they had no worries or concerns about Pexton Grange.

We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medication safely.

Staff were provided with induction and training to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge for their role. Staff understood their role and what was expected of them. The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This helped to protect the rights of people who may not be able to make important decisions themselves.

People had access to a range of health care professionals to help maintain their health. A varied and nutritious diet was provided to people that took into account dietary needs and preferences so that health was promoted and choices could be respected.

People living at the home, and their relatives said that they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and they would be listened to.

We saw people were provided with some activities to provide leisure opportunities. However, some people told us activities were limited and they were sometimes bored.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to. People using the service and their relatives had been asked their opinion via surveys and the results of these had been audited to identify any areas for improvement.

Inspection areas



Updated 30 March 2015

The service was safe.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe storage, administration and disposal of medicines.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe and meet their needs and an effective staff recruitment and selection procedure had taken place when recruiting staff.

Staff had training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and were aware of the procedures to follow to report abuse.

People expressed no fears or concerns for their safety and told us they felt safe.



Updated 30 March 2015

The service was effective.

Staff were appropriately trained and supervised to provide care and support to people who used the service.

People were provided with access to relevant health professionals to support their health needs. Where people had specific health needs, staff sought advice from specialists where required.

People were provided with a range of food and drink to maintain their health and respect their preferences.



Updated 30 March 2015

The service was caring.

Staff knew people’s preferences well and we saw some interactions that showed staff respected people’s privacy and dignity, but we saw two examples where people’s dignity and choice had not been fully respected.

Staff were positive and caring in their approach and interactions with people. They assisted people with patience and kindness.

People using the service and relatives spoke very highly of the care and support provided. Relatives said they were made to feel very welcome during their visits.



Updated 30 March 2015

The service was responsive.

People’s care plans were kept under review and had been amended in response to changes in their needs.

Staff understood people’s preferences and support needs. Whilst a programme of activities was in place, some people told us that activities were limited.

People using the service and relatives told us they felt confident to raise any issues with staff and managers and felt their concerns would be listened to.



Updated 30 March 2015

The service was well led.

The manager and staff told us they felt they had a good team. Staff said the manager and team leaders were approachable and communication was good within the home. Team meetings took place where staff could discuss various topics and share good practice.

There were quality assurance and audit processes in place.

The service had a full range of policies and procedures available to staff.