Grovelands Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

At out last assessment the provider was in breach of the legal regulation of good governance. At this assessment, the service remained in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance of the service.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff had a shared direction and there was a positive culture at Grovelands Lodge. Staff were passionate about the people they cared for. Staff told us they felt supported and included by the registered manager and felt the staff all worked well together. Comments included, “I feel proud to be part of a team that is dedicated to making a difference in residents’ lives.”

The manager was experienced and understood the context in which they delivered care and support. However, we did find that oversight was not always effective in identifying issues independently of external agencies. The systems the provider had in place to audit safety had not always identified potential risks to the environment. There was a need for areas of development including improving oversight of risk.

The registered manager was responsive, open and honest throughout the assessment of Grovelands Lodge and recognised that improvements were needed. They responded positively to feedback given.

Staff spoke positively about management. They felt well supported and that management were approachable and responsive, comments included, “The manager is always accessible and always willing to help and support.”

The provider was unable to demonstrate that staff had been receiving regular supervisions. We identified gaps and the supervisions had been inconsistent. However, staff told us they felt comfortable reporting any concerns. One staff member told us, “I feel listened to” and “It is reassuring to know that feedback is welcomed and acted on.” Staff were also aware of external agencies they could raise concerns with such as the local authority and CQC.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. We saw evidence of regular meetings with people at Grovelands Lodge.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

The provider had a policy in place for equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff had completed training in equality and diversity. Staff we spoke with told us they felt they could raise any concerns, and these would be acted on and that communication between staff, people and management was open and positive.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider’s auditing systems did not always identify the issues we found. Processes for monitoring and reviewing the environment such as fire safety and infection prevention and control (IPC) had not identified areas of concern that could have impacted on people’s safety and wellbeing. Records such as care plans and risk assessments were not always robust enough to ensure people were always kept safe.

People had access to external health professionals, and we saw evidence that external health professionals were involved in people’s care such as GP’s and consultants. A relative told us they were informed of GP appointments and referrals when they were needed. Staff told us people were encouraged to access the community. People who were independently accessing the community did so regularly and were encouraged to. We observed people accessing the community during our on-site assessment.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

There were ineffective audits in place to drive improvement. These did not always identify issues within Grovelands Lodge. For example, infection prevention and control (IPC) audits had not picked up concerns that were identified during the on-site assessment. We found no evidence people had been harmed.

The provider acknowledged that improvements were needed to ensure people always received high quality support and care.