You are here

Archived: Grassington House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 March 2016

The inspection took place on 1 and 3 February 2016 and was unannounced.

Grassington House is a small residential home situated in the centre of Dorchester. It is registered to provide care for up to 12 people and had no vacancies at the time of inspection. The home is a semi-detached period property and accommodation is over three floors accessed by a stair lift(second floor) or a small passenger lift(first floor). There is a small formal front lounge in the property and a separate dining room. However people tended to spend the majority of their time in the large conservatory at the rear of the property. All of the bedrooms have call bells and 7 of the rooms have an ensuite bathroom.

The service had 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 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

Medicines were not consistently stored safely. We looked at how medicines were stored and found that some medicines required separate storage as required by The Misuse of Drugs(safe custody) Regulations 1973. This separate storage provided was not sufficient and the registered manager told us that they would replace this as a priority.

People told us that they felt safe at the service. One person told us “I feel safe living here, the staff are very nice”. We observed staff supporting people to remain safe. For example, we observed that one member of staff noticed that a person was walking without their frame. They linked arms with the person and gently reminded them that they were supposed to use their frame for safety. Another person told us that they felt safe because staff helped them to walk daily and this improved their confidence.

Staff were aware of how to keep people safe and had undertaken safeguarding training. We looked at the staff training matrix which showed what training staff had undertaken. This confirmed that staff had received training in safeguarding adults. Staff were able to explain the signs of abuse and knew where the policy for safeguarding was kept.

People felt that there were enough staff to support them. One person said that the staff were “very nice and very helpful. They always ask what I want”. Another said they “just ask (the staff) and they are always happy to help”.

The service was effective. Staff we spoke to had detailed knowledge about the people they were supporting. All staff received regular bi-monthly formal supervision with the registered manager and also had unplanned supervision as and when required. We looked at the training records for staff which evidenced that staff had undertaken a range of relevant training including fire safety, food hygiene, health and safety, moving and handling, infection control, Safeguarding and Dementia. Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act(MCA) and had received training. They were able to explain how they support people with decision making.

The service effectively supported people to maintain a balanced diet. People at the home and visitors spoke highly about the choice and quality of food available. One person told us the “food is excellent, plenty of veggies and a nice pudding”. Another person said “If you don’t like something, just say and they(the staff) will get something else”.

We looked at how the service involved health professionals when people’s needs change. We saw evidence that the service had contacted the GP promptly when there was a recorded weight loss and the care records showed the guidance for staff which the GP had provided. One relative told us that staff “always called the GP or DN promptly off their own back, and then updated me”.

People and relatives told us that the service was caring. One person told us that when they spoke to staff “nothing is too muc

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 10 March 2016

Some medicines were not stored safely and recording of medicines was not consistent.

People received their medicines and creams as prescribed.

There were enough staff to meet peoples assessed care and support needs.

People felt safe and were supported by staff that had a clear understanding of the risks they faced and their role in reducing those risks.

Staff had completed safeguarding adults training and were able to tell us how they would raise concerns about possible abuse.



Updated 10 March 2016

The service was effective. People were offered choices about their care and treatment and staff sought consent in line with the principles of the MCA.

Staff at the home received sufficient training and regular supervision. They were supported by management to further develop their skills and learning through the Care Certificate and the Social Care Commitment.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and were offered choices about what they wanted to eat and drink.

DoLS had been applied for people who needed their liberty to be restricted to live safely in the home.

The service involved health services promptly when appropriate.



Updated 10 March 2016

Staff were caring, they knew the people they were supporting well and understood their preferences and dislikes.

People and their relatives told us that they were involved planning their support.

Confidential information was stored securely and staff respected the privacy of the people they were supporting.

Visitors were welcomed at the service and relatives were encouraged to maintain long term links with the home.



Updated 10 March 2016

People and relatives were involved in care planning and staff knew people and their preferences.

People, relatives and staff spoke very highly about the activities and fundraising opportunities at the home.

People and relatives were able to tell us how they would complain.



Updated 10 March 2016

The service was well led. People, relatives and staff had confidence in the management of the home and there was a clear person centred focus to the support provided for people.

The service had an open and transparent culture and staff were encouraged to express their views and develop their practice.

Regular quality audits took place and the registered manager was working on an action plan to use the audit information to drive best practice.