• Care Home
  • Care home

Grosvenor Lodge

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

40 Old Shoreham Road, Hove, East Sussex, BN3 6GA (01273) 739739

Provided and run by:
Mrs M Holliday-Welch

Assessment report published 19 May 2025

On this page

Effective

Good

23 April 2025

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. Good: This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. At our last inspection we found the provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to need for consent. At this inspection, enough improvements had been made, and the provider was no longer in breach of legal regulation.

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.

Assessing needs

Score: 3

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being and communication needs with them. People’s care plans reflected who they were and their preferences. People and their relatives told us how they were involved in their care planning.

Delivering evidence-based care and treatment

Score: 3

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff told us how they work with community health care professionals to support people with a particular health need such as diabetes. Another staff member said: “It's nice to have a set keyworker for residents so the staff and residents’ bonds are really good. It’s nice that we can give them the care and they are supported by their families too which is really nice.”

How staff, teams and services work together

Score: 3

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Staff told us how they work well as a team and this was observed during our inspection, staff working collaboratively. One relative said: “Always happy and smiley staff, I would give it a 5 Star rating! This is an absolute dream.”

Supporting people to live healthier lives

Score: 3

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. The home catered to people’s special dietary requirements and the chef was knowledgeable about people’s specific needs. One relative told us: “They definitely support people to live healthier lives, The fact they have a full-time activity coordinator, she encourages them to participate, they go out on trips, encourage to take care, it is very inclusive for everyone.”

Monitoring and improving outcomes

Score: 3

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Staff were knowledgeable of people’s needs, and this was observed when one person appeared unwell, staff were fast to respond and request support from the community nurse. Relatives told us how staff supported their loved one with recovery of pneumonia and supported them to recover and participate in daily activities again.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The home had assessed people’s capacity in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and care plans detailed how people made decisions and choices and how best to support them. Staff were knowledgeable about consent and had received the appropriate training, this was observed during our visit, staff asking for consent before supporting people and offering choices.