We carried out a review of the data available to us about Collingwood Grange Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Collingwood Grange Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Collingwood Grange provides residential and nursing care to up to 75 people, some of whom may be living with dementia. Accommodation is arranged over two floors. There were 42 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.
We found the following examples of good practice.
A clear visitors process was in place which enabled people to see their loved ones safely. Visits were booked in advance and health screening was completed prior to visitors entering the building. People were able to receive their visitors in their room or in a designated visiting pod. In addition, people were supported to use video calls to maintain contact with family and friends. People’s well-being had been closely monitored whilst visiting was restricted. This included the dementia specialist for the organisation reviewing people’s care plans to ensure individual activities provided were person centred.
The home was clean and hygienic throughout. High touch areas were labelled as hot spots to remind people and staff to take additional precautions. Cleaning routines had been enhanced in response to the pandemic and detailed records were kept to ensure these high standards were maintained. The layout of the building had been used effectively to enable people to socially distance. Staff worked in specific areas to minimise the risk of cross infection.
People and staff undertook COVID-19 testing in line with government guidance. A specific area had been designated for testing and allocated staff members coordinated the process. There was a good stock of personal protective equipment (PPE) which was accessible throughout the service. Staff had received training on how to use and dispose of PPE safely.
Staff told us they felt valued and supported by the management team. The provider had ensured staff had access to up to date guidance and that individual risk assessments were completed. Staff support systems had been made available such as counselling, well-being services and a COVID-19 welfare fund.
Collingwood Grange is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 75 people with nursing needs some of whom were living with dementia. There were 64 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
On the day of the inspection there were sufficient staff at the service to support people with the needs. However, people, relatives and staff fed back that there were not always enough staff deployed on each floor. We have made a recommendation around this.
There had been recent allegations of abuse made which had been reported to the local authority. Once the provider and registered manager had been made aware of this they had taken quick and appropriate action to keep people safe from harm. They had worked openly with the local authority, Police and CQC.
Staff were aware of the risks associated with people’s care and ensured that people were provided the most appropriate care. Safety checks were undertaken at the service and there were plans in place to protect people in the event of a fire. People received their medicines when needed.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff received appropriate training in relation to their role and were encouraged to progress. Nurses received clinical supervisions and were provided with updated clinical training. All staff were supervised in their role and staff told us that they felt supported.
People and relatives told us that staff were kind, caring and respectful towards them. We saw examples of this during the inspection. People were supported and encouraged to remain as independent as possible and were involved in decisions around their care.
There were sufficient activities and outings for people. Assessments of people’s needs were detailed prior to them moving into the service. Care plans were planned around people’s needs and staff were provided with sufficient guidance so that they could provide the most appropriate care.
People fed back that they enjoyed the food at the service. People’s nutritional and hydration needs were met, and people had access to healthcare professional support when needed.
There was a comprehensive system in place to assess the quality of care provided. People and relatives knew how to complain and were confident that complaints would be listened to and addressed. People, relatives and staff thought the leadership of the service was robust and effective.
Previous Inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (Report published 1 November 2017.)
Why we inspected
The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about allegations of abuse which had led to three members of staff being dismissed by the provider. A decision was made to bring the inspection forward in response to these concerns and examine any on-going risk to people.
Whilst we found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm there is an current investigation being carried out by the Police that has yet to conclude and report on its findings.
Follow up
We will continue to closely monitor information we receive about the service from the Police and our partner agencies. If we receive any concerning information we may decide to re-inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
There was a registered manager in post who supported us on both days of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At the last inspection in September 2016, the service was rated ‘Good.’ However there were breaches in regulation around the lack of mental capacity assessments for people and people were at risk of having decisions made for them without their consent. We also made recommendations in relation to staff supervisions and the choices for people at meal time. On this inspection we initially planned to review just these areas, however as we identified a concern with staffing levels on day one we returned for a second day to complete a comprehensive inspection to review all aspects of care. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’, the breach had been met and our concerns with the staffing levels had been addressed.
People told us they were safe at the service. Staff understood what constituted abuse and what to do if they suspected abuse was taking place. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm.
There was sufficient numbers of care staff deployed at the service to meet people's needs. The registered manager had increased staffing numbers as a result of our concerns being raised. Assessments were undertaken to identify risks to people to keep them safe and staff understood what the risks to people were.
Incidents and accidents were recorded, analysed and used to reduce the risk of them re-occurring. Recruitment practices were robust and ensured that only suitable staff were employed at the service.
Fire safety arrangements and risk assessments for the environment were in place to help keep people safe. The service had a business continuity plan that identified how the service would function in the event of an emergency such as fire, adverse weather conditions, flooding or power cuts.
Medicines were managed, stored and disposed of safely. Any changes to people's medicines were prescribed by the person's GP and administered appropriately.
Staff were up to date with current guidance to support people to make decisions. Where people had restrictions placed on them, there was evidence that these were done in their best interests. Mental capacity assessments were completed in relation to specific decisions.
Staff were having group and one to one support with their manager that promoted their development. We found the staff team were knowledgeable about people's care needs. People told us they felt supported and staff knew what they were doing.
People had sufficient amounts to eat and drink and there were appropriate arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk. People were supported to have access to health care services.
Staff treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. People's preferences, likes and dislikes had been taken into consideration and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes. People's privacy and dignity were respected and promoted when personal care was undertaken.
People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them. People were protected from social isolation.
People's needs were assessed when they entered the service and on a continuous basis to reflect changes in their needs. Staff understood the care that people required and shared information with each other when there were changes to care.
People were encouraged to voice their concerns or complaints about the service. Concerns and complaints were used as an opportunity to learn and improve the service. The provider actively sought, encouraged and supported people's involvement in the improvement of the service.
The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the care provided. Records were legible, up to date and reflected the most up to date care needs.
Staff told us they would report any concerns to their manager. People and staff felt that management were very supportive.
The last inspection was 6 September 2016 where we identified one breach of regulation.
There was a registered manager in post on the day of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
There was a lack of MCA assessments in relation to specific decisions and people’s ‘Do not Resuscitate’ forms were not always appropriate. Where people had restrictions placed on them there was not always evidence that this was done in their best interests. However, staff were up to date with current guidance to support people to make decisions.
There was sufficient numbers of care staff at the service to meet people's needs, however we asked the manager to address the deployment of staff during meal times to ensure that people were not kept waiting for support with their meals. Risks assessments were in place for people and staff understood and acted upon the guidance provided. Fire safety arrangements and risk assessments for the environment were in place to help keep people safe. The service had a business contingency plan that identified how the service would function in the event of an emergency such as fire, adverse weather conditions, flooding or power cuts.
Medicines were managed, stored and disposed of safely. Any changes to people's medicines were
prescribed by the person's GP and administered appropriately. People understood the medicines they were receiving and where appropriate relatives were kept informed of people’s medicines.
People told us they were safe at the service and relatives felt their family members were safe. Staff had a good understanding about the signs of abuse and were aware of what to do if they suspected abuse was taking place. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff started work.
We found the staff team were knowledgeable about people's care needs. People told us they felt supported and staff knew what they were doing. However, staff had not always received appropriate supervision.
People had enough to eat and drink and there were arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk. We asked the registered manager to ensure that people were being supported with meals when they needed and that people were always offered meal choices.
People were supported to have access to healthcare services and were involved in the regular monitoring of their health. The provider worked effectively with healthcare professionals and was pro-active in referring people for assessment or treatment.
Staff treated people with care, kindness, dignity and respect. People's preferences, likes and dislikes had been taken into consideration and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes. People's privacy and dignity were respected and promoted when personal care was undertaken.
People's needs were assessed when they entered the service and on a continuous basis to reflect changes in their needs. There were some care plans that required updated information which the registered manager confirmed that they were addressing. People's care and welfare was monitored regularly to ensure their needs were met.
People were supported to voice their concerns or complaints about the service. Concerns and complaints were used as an opportunity to learn and improve the service. The provider actively sought, encouraged and supported people's involvement in the improvement of the home.
People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them. People were protected from social isolation through systems the service had in place. There were a range of activities available within the service and outside.
The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the care provided and had acted upon areas of improvement needed. People told us the staff were friendly and management were always approachable. Staff were encouraged to contribute to the improvement of the service. Staff felt that management were very supportive.
During the inspection we found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report. We have also made recommendations around some regulations. Details of these are shown on the full report.
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 19 January 2015. Breaches of legal requirements were found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to people’s consent to care and treatment, staff not being appropriately supported, staffing levels, care and welfare of people, respecting and involving people, meeting people’s nutritional needs and records.
We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they have now met legal requirements. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Collingwood Grange Care Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
There was a registered manager at the service however they were on leave on the day of our visit. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Although there was a programme of activities people did not always enjoy what was being provided. There was a lack of activities specific to people’s individual needs and wants.
Records of people’s care were not always up to date and accurate. They did not always reflect the care that had been provided.
There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed around the service to meet people’s needs. We saw that people received care in a timely way from staff.
Staff had the most up to date guidance in relation to their role. The required mandatory training had been completed by all of the staff and nurses were up to date with their clinical knowledge.
Staff had knowledge of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Where people lacked capacity and their liberties were restricted in their best interests applications had been made to the local authority in relation to the liberty being deprived.
Staff gave examples of where they would ask people for consent in relation to providing personal care. We saw several instances of this happening during the day.
People and relatives felt that staff were kind and considerate. People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff throughout the inspection. However we did see a few examples of care which did not demonstrate dignity for the individuals concerned. Staff acknowledged people warmly and sat talking with people where possible.
We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 19 January 2015. Breaches of legal requirements were found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to cleanliness and infection control.
We undertook this focused inspection on the 2 April 2015 to check that the provider had followed their plan and to confirm they have now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Collingwood Grange Care Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
The service was clean and the risks of cross infection had been reduced. People’s rooms and all of the communal areas were clean and tidy. Staff had received refresher training in infection control and we saw staff using gloves and aprons where necessary. Additional staff had been recruited to keep the service clean.
This was an unannounced inspection, which took place on the 19 January 2015. Collingwood Grange Care Centre is a care home with nursing provided by BUPA. Collingwood Grange Care Centre provides care for up 90 people on a short- and long-term basis. The care provided includes nursing, care for people living with dementia and care for people with Huntington disease.
At the time of inspection there was a registered manager. 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.
People and their relatives said they felt they were safe with the staff. One person said “I feel safe and happy here; I would tell the manager if I had safety concerns but there's been no need”. Another said “You can be vulnerable somewhere like this but I feel safe”. Not all staff had received updated safeguarding adults training but had knowledge of the safeguarding procedures and what to do if they suspected abuse.
There were not always enough staff to safely meet people’s needs. This meant that sometimes people did not receive care in a timely way. Staff felt that care was rushed as a result of there not being enough staff. One person said ”The staff look after you well but sometimes I have to wait a bit when I press the buzzer, they're probably too busy to come right away.”
Risk assessments for people were undertaken and measures put in place to reduce the risk of them coming to harm. Staff were aware of people’s risks and what to do to minimise them.
Medicine was administered safely and disposed of in a safe way. People’s medicine charts were completed correctly and a nurse signed to say that people’s medicines had been given. There was guidance for staff on when to give people their PRN (as needed) medicines.
Pre-employment checks for staff were completed. For example in relation to their full employment history and reasons why they had left previous employment. This meant that only suitable staff were employed.
One relative told us “We’re happy with the nurses and carers here. They seem efficient. If my husband is unwell and I'm not here, the staff always notify me including letting me know if the doctor's been to see him. I don't have to wait long”. Health care professionals said that staff had the support and skills to deal with some people’s complex conditions.
Staff were not up to date with the service mandatory training and others had not had any training in some areas. This included first aid, fire training and infection control. This meant that staff would not have the most up to date guidance. Not at all staff had received a one to one supervision or appraisal with their manager.
People said staff asked them for consent before they gave care. One said “The staff look after me well and ask for my consent to care.” Staff knew about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and mental capacity assessments had taken place for most people. However where people’s freedom was restricted by keypad doors and the provider had not completed the appropriate forms to the Local Authority.
People thought the food was good and felt that their nutritional needs were catered for. People were encouraged to make their own decisions about the food they wanted. There was a wide variety of fresh food and drinks available for people. However those people who needed additional support to eat were not always given that.
People had access to a range of health care professionals, such as chiropodist, community matron and a GP. GPs visited regularly and people were referred when there were concerns with their health.
People thought that the staff were caring and that they were treated with dignity and respect. People also felt that if they needed privacy then this would be given. We saw instances where staff were not always caring. These related to people who needed additional support and were living with dementia.
Some people felt there was enough to do. One told us “I can do what I want - go out in the summertime, phone my family, watch television and I decide when to go to bed.”
There were not enough activities provided for people specific to their needs. This was more specific to the needs of people living with dementia. Some people said that they didn’t like group activities but preferred to sit with one person to do something meaningful to them. They felt that this was not always offered to them.
People and relatives said they understood how to make a complaint and felt comfortable to do so. There was a copy of the complaints procedure for everyone to see in the reception area. All of the complaints were logged and there was evidence that the provider learned from these complaints.
People, relatives and staff were asked for their opinion and feedback on what they thought of the service. The Manager was unable to show us the analysis of the 2013 Survey and was waiting for the analysis of the 2014 Survey. Regular residents and relatives meeting had taken place and suggestions and issues were used to improve the service.
People and staff felt that the service was well managed. However not all of the audits that took place were effective and improvements had not always been made as a result of the audits. For example in relation to cleanliness and staff being caring.
We found nine breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
The provider sent us their action plan which addressed how and by when they would become compliant with the required standards.
Staff understood the signs of abuse and told us they would raise any concerns with managers and were confident that their concerns would be dealt with in a timely manner. People spoken with told us they felt safe living at the home. One person told us 'If I was worried about anything or if I heard or saw anything that I though should not be happening then I would tell the managers.'
Improvements had been made in infection control practices and the home was clean and hygienic. People spoken with displayed a high level of satisfaction with the cleaning at the home. One person said 'It's always spotless.' A second person told us 'They try so hard to keep my room up to scratch, I think they do a good job.'
Staff informed us improvements had been made in the level of support and supervision they received from managers.
The arrangements in place to monitor the quality of the service had improved and people's confidential records had been stored appropriately and securely.
There has been no registered manager at this service since January 2013.
People had been treated respectfully and their views had been taken in to account by staff. Risks to people's health and welfare had been assessed and care was planned and delivered according to people's needs.
Some staff did not understand the signs of abuse and what constituted abuse. Nor did managers respond in a timely manner to concerns raised. Some infection control practices at the home were poor.
People's health and welfare needs were met by sufficient numbers of appropriate staff. However staff had not received appropriate supervision and support.
The arrangements in place to monitor the quality of the service were ineffective. People's confidential records had not been stored securely.
You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.
The SOFI tool enabled us to spend time watching what was going on in the service and helped us to record how people spent their time, the type of
support they got and whether they had positive experiences. We spent a considerable amount of time observing care and found that on the whole people had positive experiences.
People using the service who could express a view told us they liked living at the home. They said that the staff were good, and they were encouraged and supported to do things for themselves.
People said they were encouraged to express their views and make or participate in making decisions related to their care and treatment.
During our visit we spoke with three people's representatives who were visiting the home, and following the visit we also spoke with five representatives on the telephone. Most of the representatives told us they were happy with the care provided at the home. Others told us that there was not enough staff on duty at weekends and that this had a negative impact on their relative.
People's representatives informed us that they were consulted about their relative's care needs, as and when appropriate. They told us they felt able to raise any complaints and they were confident that their concerns would be responded to and dealt with quickly.
They make decisions about themselves, and they can talk to staff and the manager if they were not happy with how they are being looked after.
People who use the service told us that they are looked after well by all the staff. They told us that they were aware of their care plans, and had been included in producing them, but their families are more involved with these. They stated that they could not remember all the information in their care plans. Some of the people using the service informed us that they visited the service before making a decision about moving in, and that an assessment of their needs was undertaken at this time, which was then repeated when they moved into the home. The other people told us they went to the service from hospital, and an assessment was undertaken at that time.
They agreed that the food at the service is very good, and there is always a choice. They told us that they can have a drink and snack at any time, and can choose to have their meals in their bedrooms.
We were told by people who use the service that they felt safe and well looked after by the staff at the service. They told us that staff look after them in a respectful manner, and always respect their privacy and dignity. They stated that staff always listen and act on what they say.
During discussion in regard to medication, people who use the service told us that they always receive their medication on time, and they know what the medicines are for. We were told that the GP visits them at the service and they are seen in the privacy of their bedrooms. They can go to the surgeries if they wish to.
People who use the service agreed that there is enough staff on duty to help them when they need support. Staff always talk to them in a nice and respectful manner, are always available, and they look after them well.