You are here

Grosvenor Lodge Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 8 August 2019

About the service

Grosvenor Lodge is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 31 older people some of whom were living with dementia. There were 30 people living at the service during the inspection.

Grosvenor Lodge accommodates 31 people in one adapted building. There were three shared lounges, a dining room and accessible garden.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Risks to people were not always appropriately recognised and assessed. Risks around people’s health diagnoses, behaviour that may challenge and specific healthcare aids had not always been recognised and planned for. When people’s behaviour could challenge, this was not always recorded and monitored appropriately. Safeguarding was not always reported appropriately when people displayed behaviour that challenged which affected other people.

People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support always them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not always support this practice.

The quality assurance framework was not effective and had not supported the provider to identify and address the areas needing improvement. There was no guidance in place for medicines which were prescribed ‘as required’ (PRN). Staff were supported when they began administering medicines, and their competency to do this was checked, but this was not recorded.

People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect and encouraged to express their views and be involved in their care. One person told us, “It’s my favourite place to come to.” Another person’s relative said, “I'm happy that she is safe and well looked after.”

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home. Care plans included people’s life histories, hobbies and interests. When appropriate, people’s preferences for the end of their lives had been discussed with them and their relatives.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited using safe recruitment methods and supported with induction, training and regular supervision. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team.

People were supported to eat and drink, staff knew about anyone with specialist needs around food. People were supported to access health care support as needed. Staff worked in partnership with other agencies and professionals to support people.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (9 March 2016)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.


We have identified three breaches of regulation in relation to the governance of the service. The provider failed to ensure that they had assessed, monitored and mitigated the risks relating to health, safety and welfare of people and others. The provider had not ensured that an accurate, complete and contemporaneous record in respect to each person had been kept.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 8 August 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 8 August 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 8 August 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 8 August 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 8 August 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.