Ings Grove House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 15 September 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Dates of assessment were from 21 July to 28 July 2026. The assessment was triggered in response to risk and included visits to the service on 21, 22 and 23 July 2026. Ings Grove House is a care home which can support up to 40 people. The home provides intermediate care, which supports hospital discharge through rehabilitation to help people regain previous levels of independence. At the time of the visit, there were 31 people using the service.

The provider was previously in breach of regulations relating to safe management of medicines and good governance. Although some improvements had been made, medicines were not managed safely which meant there was a continued breach in this area. Improvements had been made in relation to good governance of the service and although further improvements were needed, the service was no longer in breach of regulation in this area.

New measures to improve governance, quality assurance and operational oversight had been introduced. While these actions had led to some progress, they were not yet fully embedded, and further work was needed to demonstrate sustained improvements, particularly in relation to medicines management and oversight processes.

Systems used to monitor and analyse safety incidents needed some improvement to make sure the overview was accurate. The registered manager gave assurances this was being addressed.

Staff were recruited safely and felt well supported although training compliance in some areas was low.

Risk assessments varied in quality, and oversight of care records had not been sufficiently robust to identify some risks. Although actions were taken during the assessment to address concerns around care chart monitoring these improvements were still developing. Partnership working with the community healthcare team had improved but remained inconsistent due to some lack of clarity around responsibilities.

People benefited from safe admission procedures, effective multidisciplinary assessment of their needs, person-centred care, and positive rehabilitation outcomes. People were generally involved in decisions about their care and systems were in place to gather and act upon people’s feedback about the service. Some environmental re-organisation meant people had better access to communal areas.

Most people achieved their rehabilitation goals and were successfully discharged to appropriate settings, reflecting good outcomes and equitable access to support.