• Care Home
  • Care home

Tapton Grove

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Grove Road, Brimington, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, S43 1QH (01246) 274178

Provided and run by:
Sun Healthcare Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Inspection: 30 March to 9 April 2026. Tapton Grove is a residential and nursing home providing regulated activity to adults living with dementia and mental health conditions. The service is registered to provide care for up to 61 people. At the time of our inspection, 37 people were using the service. This inspection was carried out to follow up on the actions we had asked the provider to make following our last inspection in July 2025. At this inspection we found 2 continued breaches of regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment and the need for consent. Further work was still required to ensure effective oversight of medicine management and the quality and completion of mental capacity assessments. Some issues we identified during this inspection had not been highlighted through the provider’s audit processes, meaning some risks and inconsistencies had not been recognised or addressed. We did identify several improvements made by the provider, including strengthened processes for managing known risks. People’s care plans and risk assessments had been updated, and appropriate control measures were now in place to minimise the likelihood of avoidable harm. We also found improvements to the oversight of environmental risks and a more effective staffing structure in place. We found the provider had strengthened their systems and processes, with effective measures in place to ensure accidents and incidents were properly investigated and analysed. Improvements had also been made to how people’s needs were assessed we found clear, up‑to‑date information was available to staff, providing an overview of people’s assessed needs, and this was reviewed regularly. Shift handovers ensured staff were informed of any changes, and regular meetings were held across the service with the management team. The provider had increased the range of activities available since our last inspection, and the activities timetable had been co‑produced with people using the service and staff. We also found the provider had taken action to address previous concerns relating to people’s independence, choice and understanding of their rights. People told us they felt supported to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing, and this was now more clearly reflected in care documentation. People were supported to plan for significant life changes, giving them time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. This service has been in Special Measures since September 2025. The provider demonstrated improvements that have been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

During an assessment under our new approach

Dates of assessment: 21 July 2025 to 4 August 2025

This service is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 61 people, including individuals living with dementia and those requiring mental health support. At the time we started our assessment, 36 people were living at the service. We completed this assessment in response to concerns about the service we received from partner agencies and the public. We looked at all the quality statements in the key questions of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.We found 3 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, need for consent, and governance.Whilst some safe practices were in place, people were at risk of harm and some regulations were not met due to the provider’s failure to consistently identify and mitigate risk. Where actions were taken, they were often unclear, uncoordinated, and lacked effective oversight. Environmental risks were not properly assessed or managed. Additionally, infection prevention and control measures required significant improvement to ensure people's safety. Medicines were not always managed safely. There were widespread shortfalls in the care and support provided. Care did not consistently reflect current evidence-based guidance, best practice, or recognised standards. The service did not ensure that people’s mental capacity was assessed when necessary, nor were consent to care and best interest decisions obtained in line with legal requirements, including the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.The service was not consistently caring. People’s privacy and dignity were not always maintained, and they were not always informed about which staff would be providing their care. There were concerns about people’s dignity and confidentiality. The service did not always meet people’s needs. Governance systems were ineffective and had failed to identify or address the significant concerns found during the assessment. The culture within the service was poor, characterised by low staff morale. Staff reported feeling burnt out, and not always heard by the management team due to limited action taken in response to their feedback.As a result, the service is being placed into special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services rated as inadequate make significant improvements. This framework allows CQC to use enforcement powers where necessary and sets a clear time frame for the provider to improve the quality of care delivered.

21 February 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Tapton Grove is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 61 people. The service provides support to people living with dementia and people with mental health support needs. At the time of our inspection there were 51 people using the service. Accommodation is provided in one purpose-built building and two adapted buildings.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were supported to manage their medicines safely and received their medicines as prescribed. People were supported by suitable staff who were safely recruited and trained. The areas of risk in people’s lives were identified and care and support planned to mitigate these risks.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The registered manager was committed to achieving good outcomes for people. People were involved in planning their care and made choices about how their care was delivered. People were able to access a range of professionals for specialist support.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 9 April 2019).

Why we inspected

We received concerns in relation to safe management of medicines, adequate staffing and effective management. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the safe and well led sections of this full report.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Tapton Grove on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

19 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Tapton Grove provides mental health services for adults. There are 61 single bedrooms divided over three units; The Coach House, Tapton Grove and Grove House. The Coach House is a 20-bedded residential rehabilitation unit, that prepares people to move into their own homes in the community. Tapton Grove provides nursing and accommodation for up to 23 males with enduring mental health needs. Grove House has two units, both provide nursing and accommodation for up to 10 adults with mental health needs. The home is set in 12 acres of well-maintained grounds and woodland with a lake and is two miles from Chesterfield town centre. There were 53 people using the service on the day of this inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

Staff knew how to recognise and protect people from the risk of abuse. The infection control practices in place reduced the possibility of people acquiring an infection. People were supported to lead full lives by taking reasonable risks. Where people needed support to take their medicine, this was provided in a safe way. Recruitment checks were undertaken, to determine the suitability of new staff and protect people that used the service.

People were supported to make decisions about what they ate, to ensure the meals met their preferences and dietary needs. Drinks were available to people throughout the day. People using the service for rehabilitation were supported to plan and prepare their own meals. Where people were unable to independently make specific decisions regarding their care; assessments were undertaken to determine the support they needed with these decisions. This ensured people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and were supported in the least restrictive way possible. People were involved in their care to enable them to receive support in their preferred way. People had access to healthcare services and received coordinated support, to ensure their preferences and needs were met.

People were supported to take part in social activities of their choice, both in and out of the home to enhance their well-being. People maintained relationships with their family and friends and were supported to raise any concerns and give their views on the service and support they received. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and drive improvement.

More information is in the full report below.

Rating at last inspection: Requires Improvement (report published 23 March 2017).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. At this inspection we saw that improvements have been made.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

29 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Tapton Grove is registered to provide accommodation for up to 67 older people, some who are living with dementia, who require personal or nursing care. One part of the service, the Coach House, provides a rehabilitation service. There were 54 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

This inspection took place on 29 and 30 November 2016. The first day was unannounced.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

Medicines were not always managed safely. There were recoding errors, some records did not correspond accurately with medicines stocks and guidance for ‘as required’ medicines and specific medicines was not always available. Medicine trolleys were not stored securely to the wall when not in use. Medicine refrigerator temperatures were not consistently recorded. Issues raised via medicines audits were not always acted on.

Routine health checks were not always carried out consistently and records of specific health needs did not confirm that appropriate health care had been provided.

Systems to monitor the quality of the service were not always effective in Identifying issues for improvement.

There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and staff recruitment practices were satisfactory.

People were safeguarded from abuse because the provider had relevant guidance in place and staff were knowledgeable about the reporting procedure.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to assess whether people were able to consent to their care. The provider was meeting the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). This meant people’s rights were being upheld, and any restrictions in their care were lawful and appropriate.

People told us they enjoyed their food and we saw meals were nutritious.

Staff received relevant training and support to carry out their roles.

People were supported to be involved in their care planning and delivery. The support people received was tailored to meet their individual needs, wishes and aspirations.

People told us the care staff were caring and kind and that their privacy and dignity was maintained when personal care was provided.

There was a wide range of activities and events available to enable people to take part in hobbies and interests of their choice.

Complaints were well managed. The leadership of the service was praised by external professionals and communication systems were effective. The provider had obtained feedback about the quality of the service from people, their relatives and staff.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.You can see what action we took at the back of this report.

4 November 2014

During a routine inspection

Tapton Grove is a home divided into three units for up to sixty-seven people with mental health needs. Fifty- three people were using the service at the time of our inspection visit.

This inspection took place on 4 November 2014.

There was a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. 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.

Where people using the service lacked capacity to understand certain decisions related to their care and treatment, the provider was not following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Although there were restrictions in place for some people, there had been no assessment to determine whether or not this was in people’s best interests.

People using the service were protected from abuse because the provider had taken steps to minimise the risk of abuse. Decisions related to peoples care were taken in consultation with people using the service, their next of kin and other healthcare professionals, which ensured their rights were protected. The premises were safely maintained and medicines were managed safely.

There were enough staff available at the service and staffing levels were determined according to people’s individual needs.

Staff received training to support people with mental health conditions.

Staff were supported through strong links with community healthcare professionals to ensure people received effective care relating to their diet and their ongoing healthcare needs. We have made a recommendation about the use of best practice guidance.

There was a friendly, relaxed atmosphere at the home. People told us they enjoyed living there and their relatives told us that staff were caring and compassionate. People were able to take part in hobbies and interests of their choice and links with community facilities were maintained that helped people who were preparing for independent living.

The registered manager at the home was familiar with all of the people living there and staff felt supported by the management team. The provider had a system in place to obtain feedback from people via meetings and surveys and they told us they felt listened to. There were also regular meetings for staff to contribute to the running of the service. There was a clear complaints procedure that was followed to ensure people’s concerns were addressed.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

23 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We talked with people who lived in the home and they said that they were well looked after. They said the staff always asked them how they would like things to be done. They said staff were always mindful of their privacy and treated them with respect.

We found that the service had a robust recruitment process. That process was designed to ensure that the provider only employed staff who were fit to work with vulnerable people.

We saw that the home was clean and tidy but with some disruption as improvement work being carried on in one of the units. People's bedrooms had been personalised to their own tastes.

People told us that staff were always available when they needed help. They said that the staff were friendly and always acted professionally. One person said, 'The staff are very good' and another said, 'They're bang on'.

There was a system in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. This ensured people received a service which was of high quality and met their needs.

14 June 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke to eight people who resided at the home and six staff including all the deputy managers to find out about the service provided by the home. Some people with dementia were not able to tell us about what it was like at the home.

People were given the opportunity to visit the service being moving in. One person told us they visited on several occasions and that they were happy with the admission process.

People told us about their lifestyles at the home. Some people told us they went out regularly and could follow their own interests. Two people told us they rarely went out but would like to.

We observed positive interactions between people in the home and staff in all three of the units.

It was evident from the interactions and what people told us that people knew the staff well. People readily gave us the names of the staff they would approach if they felt the need to talk to them.

Two people told us that the staff were variable and they 'got on better with some staff than others'. One person told us that staff had done a 'wonderful job' to help them with a healthcare need they had.

Some people were involved in interviewing staff who would work with them on an individual basis.