Grosvenor House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

This means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider demonstrated an effective safeguarding culture. They focused on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

Leaders shared any concerns regarding abuse or neglect with appropriate agencies and investigated safeguarding incidents appropriately. Where any shortfalls in staff practice were identified, they made the necessary improvements to ensure people’s safety. Any lessons learned were shared with staff.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and the staff we spoke with understood the action to take if they had any concerns that abuse or neglect was taking place.

Staff supported people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s capacity to make decisions about their care was assessed and when people lacked the capacity to make such decisions, their family members were involved in making decisions in their best interests. When people were being deprived of their liberty to keep them safe, management had made the necessary applications for authorisation to do this in line with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The provider worked well with people to understand and manage any risks to their health and wellbeing. Staff provided care which met people’s needs, was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider completed risk assessments where risks to people’s health and safety were present and created care plans to guide staff on how to support people to manage those risks. We found some care plans and risk assessments contained inconsistent information about recent changes to people’s risks and needs and not all had been updated appropriately, for example after a person had fallen or when their nutritional needs had changed. However, the staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people’s current care needs and we found no evidence that this had had a negative impact on people’s health and wellbeing or that people had received inappropriate care. We discussed this with the registered manager, who assured us they would update the documentation to ensure it was accurate and consistent.

People felt safe living at the service. They told us, “I feel absolutely safe here. They look after us beautifully. I have not had any falls, accidents or pressure sores and have had no need to see a doctor” and “I do feel safe here and it’s good that I have a pressure mat beside my bed in case of a fall or a need to call for help.” Relatives told us their family members received safe care. A relative commented. “They look after [name] very well. I can find no fault at all. Everything they do is above and beyond. If there are any medical issues, they respond quickly and they call me.”

Records showed and staff told us that when people needed specialist support to manage risks to their health and wellbeing, such as a risk of choking or falling, this was arranged. A community healthcare professional who visited the service told us people’s care was a priority for the service and staff knew people well.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, to provide people with safe care which met their needs. Staff received effective support, supervision and development.

Of the 13 people, we spoke with, 11 were happy with staffing levels at the service and told us they received support when they needed it. One person commented, “The staff come quickly, there are no delays.” Relatives were also happy with staffing levels. A relative told us, “There are sufficient staff to ensure a high standard of care, and they know what they’re doing”. Two people told us they could wait a while for support during busier times or emergencies, and we shared this feedback with the registered manager.

Of the 11 staff we had contact with, 5 were happy with staffing levels at the service. The remaining 6 staff felt that, while staffing levels were generally appropriate for the service, occasional short-notice sickness or emergencies could create challenges, which sometimes led to delays in providing support. We discussed this feedback with the registered manager, who explained that the service actively seeks to maintain safe staffing levels by arranging cover through permanent or agency staff whenever absences occur. They told us they personally step in to support people when needed, helping to ensure continuity of care.

We reviewed staffing rotas for 3 weeks, including the week of the inspection, and found the staffing levels set by the provider had been met. Records showed the service employed agency staff when there were insufficient permanent staff available and management informed us they were in the process of recruiting additional bank staff, who could be called upon when needed. During our inspection we observed that people received support when they needed it.

The provider followed safe recruitment practices. Appropriate checks were completed before staff began working at the service to ensure they were suitable to support people living there.

Staff received regular supervision, yearly appraisals and told us they were supported well by management at the service. A staff member told us, “[Registered manager] is approachable, we can raise any issues. I feel valued and I’m well supported.”