Grove Court

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

Safe – 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 72 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had systems to investigate and act on incidents and accidents. Outcomes were shared with staff, relatives and relevant parties, where needed, in line with duty of candour requirements and to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored. The provider was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People and their relatives told us they had timely access to healthcare professionals when needed. Staff supported people to access their GP and other external services through agreed pathways, including arranging routine reviews and urgent appointments, requesting advice, and escalating any concerns promptly. Where people required community nursing input, staff worked closely with district and community nurses to coordinate visits, share relevant information and follow clinical guidance. This included supporting people to attend appointments where needed, facilitating community nurse visits to the home, and following up referrals to ensure people did not experience avoidable delays. Staff recorded contacts with professionals and the outcomes of visits and advice, and ensured actions were communicated to the wider team so people received consistent care.

The provider had effective and safe admission process in place. People, their family and, if required, health professionals were involved in the process to ensure needs were assessed and care was planned. Leaders shared all relevant information with staff to ensure care was delivered safely in line with best practice.

People were protected from the risk of abuse, neglect, and discrimination. Safeguarding policies were in place and staff had completed safeguarding training. The provider had safeguarding systems and processes to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and protect individuals from abuse and neglect.

People told us they felt safe living at Grove Court. One person told us, “Staff are very nice, they ask me many times if I am happy and would say so if I was not.” Another person said, “I do feel safe, staff are very good.”

Relatives told us people were safe and well looked after, comments included, “I see the same faces, they have name badges on, and they have very good security.” Another relative commented, “My [family member] is safe, as completely as you can be in a care setting. There are carers about to help [family member], and they never appear to have to wait too long for support.” A third relative said, “I have never had the slightest concern about my [family member’s] personal safety at Grove Court.”

Staff understood the principles of safeguarding, had received training and were confident in how to report abuse in the service if they had needed to. One staff member told us, “People at Grove Court are kept safe through regular monitoring and staff training in safeguarding procedures; if I have a concern, I would immediately report it to my supervisor.” Another staff member said, “We as staff have to complete mandatory training for safeguarding which enables us to recognise different kinds of abuse and how to respond/report safeguarding incidents. If I had a safeguarding concern, I would report to the care manager who is also our safeguarding lead.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that appropriate processes and procedures had been followed to ensure people were not unlawfully deprived of their liberty.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Whilst people told us they felt safe living at Grove Court, the provider did not always manage all risks well. Where potential risks had been identified, a risk assessment had been completed; however, these documents were not always sufficiently detailed and follow‑up actions were not consistently recorded in a way that enabled emerging concerns to be identified and escalated promptly. Despite these gaps in recording, there was no evidence that people experienced harm or that care was not being delivered. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and were providing day‑to‑day support in line with what people required. The registered manager was already reviewing people’s care plans at the time of our inspection and took immediate action to strengthen risk management systems and address the shortfalls we identified.

The environment was clean, welcoming, and well maintained. Communal areas were well furnished and homely. Systems were in place to maintain a safe environment with a range of maintenance audits completed. The provider completed environmental risk assessments and health and safety checks to help keep the environment safe. Equipment was serviced regularly to ensure it was working correctly.

The external grounds were secure and vast with well-maintained lawned areas, flower beds and outside seating and a summer house for people’s use. Adjacent to the main gardens there was a large poly tunnel where people, staff and volunteers grew flowers which were then displayed across the care home. A relative told us, “[Family member] is safe, there are beautiful gardens, the doors are open, they are not locked in. [Family member] goes out with their stroller independently, there are lots of seats around so they can have a rest, the outdoor space is good, they have freedom and the location is good.”

The maintenance lead for the service was responsive and knew all people well. The documents in place for maintenance oversight were organised, with all required safety certificates in place. For example, regular checks on the water system, to ensure the risk of Legionella was minimised, and checks on equipment, such as the heating system and fire safety.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Many staff described the team culture as supportive and responsive. We observed staff were able to respond to people’s needs in a timely and coordinated way.

People told us staff were busy at times but overall, there were enough staff available to meet their needs. One person said, “They are quick to answer my call bell although not so much at night, but it is acceptable, weekends are very good, staff are good.” Another person said, “Staff respond to my call bell but take more time when they are getting people up. They are not short staffed but busy.” A third person said, “When I use my call bell, they are very good and always come, no problems on that.”

Relatives were complimentary about the staff, and how they supported people without delay. One relative said, “Staff are as flexible as possible in permitting individual choice within available resources. They are also very responsive to special requirements, for example, very early external medical appointments.” Another relative told us, “Grove Court is a safe environment. It is well staffed and the staff seem to know [people] well. They quite often come to my [family member’s] room while I’m visiting, either to fulfill a regular medical check, or just offering tea etc.”

We received mixed feedback about staffing from staff with comments around inconsistencies in cover when staff were off sick. One staff member told us, “Usually there are sufficient staff, but unfortunately this is not always the case due to sickness.” Another staff member said, “While staffing is usually manageable, there are times when absences are not fully covered, which can leave shifts short-staffed.” Overall, however, staff confirmed people’s needs were still consistently met and to high standards.

We discussed staffing levels at length with the registered manager who told us the staffing levels were based on people’s dependencies and people’s needs were kept under review to ensure staffing levels remained safe. Records demonstrated the dependency tool and systems to determine staffing levels were updated as people’s needs changed. Call bell response times were analysed and provided further assurances staffing numbers and deployment remained appropriate. The registered manager committed to continuing to closely monitor the staffing levels.

Staff, including nurses, were recruited safely. Staff completed induction and essential training to ensure they could meet people’s specific needs and provide safe and effective care. Staff competencies were assessed regularly. Nurses were supported to maintain their professional practice and knowledge. Staff were supervised and received feedback on their performance. A staff member told us, “I receive regular training, and supervision to help improve my skills.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

We observed the home overall to be clean and tidy, and staff adhered to good infection prevention and control (IPC) practices. For example, we saw staff wash their hands and use appropriate personal protective equipment before supporting people with their care.

Systems were in place to maintain and monitor cleanliness including cleaning schedules and a wide range of IPC audits. The provider had an effective infection prevention and control policy and procedure, which staff had access to. Staff were trained and understood when to use and dispose of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gloves and aprons. We observed staff practised good hand hygiene principles and used PPE to help prevent and control the spread of infection.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People were offered their medicines at the right time using a person-centred approach and people told us they received their medicines when they needed them. One person told us, “I have medication several times a day. I can ask for [pain relief] at times to suit me for pain and means that I can manage my pain. None of my medicines are missed.” Another person said, “They bring my medicines and stay until I have taken the whole lot.”

Medicines were recorded on an electronic system ‘eMAR’ system. Medicines were administered by registered nurses and senior staff, all of whom had completed medication training and had a competency assessment of their safe practice undertaken by senior staff.

Storage of medicines was secure, and stock balances were well managed. We audited stock balances with a nurse and found they corresponded to the eMAR and were correctly recorded. PRN protocols were in place to support staff to administer ‘when required’ medicines. Staff administered medicines in line with best practice guidance.