Grosvenor House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff supported people in a person-centred way. Care plans were person-centred, they reflected people as individuals, their needs, interests and preferences. They included details about what people enjoyed doing and who was important to them. Care plans were regularly reviewed. Daily records demonstrated what people had been doing each day. Relatives and where they were able, people, were involved in the reviews to ensure they were current and contained the relevant information. One person told us, “They ask you about your needs and what you need regularly.” Another person said, “They do have care plans for us. I think that I have read them.” One relative said, “I have been involved right from the start, before she went in and since then.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People were referred to relevant health and social care professionals when required. One relative said staff were, “Proactive” in contacting health professionals when required. People received support from a consistent staff team for continuity. Staff were regularly updated about changes in people’s care and support needs, and information was available to share with relevant health and social care professionals.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Communication plans were in place for each person. These included information about how people liked to communicate. Where some people were less able to communicate verbally there was more detailed information for staff. Staff were clear that it took time to get to know people where communication was more complex. They explained other methods were used to compliment the spoken word, such as pointing at objects, gestures and pictures.

We observed staff interacting with people throughout the day and providing information in a way they could understand. There was a pictorial activity planner to help people make decisions and choices about what they wanted to do. Menus were written, and photographs of the meal choices were displayed. Staff told us they were able to show people pictures of meals to assist with food choices. The registered manager told us large print documents and books were available to people who needed them.

People had information folders in their rooms, these included details of the home, how to raise concerns and meeting dates.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There were regular meetings where people were able to discuss what was happening at the home and make requests and suggestions. Relatives were invited to attend these meetings if they wished to. Where people had made suggestions, these had been followed up, for example, in relation to meal choices and trips out. People told us about the meetings, one person said, “They have them 4 times a year. I have a programme in my room. They discuss everything from the kitchen to housekeeping to stuff to do. They ask everyone’s view.”

Annual feedback surveys were sent to people and relatives. Where required these were in ’easy read’ (pictorial) format. Where areas for development or improvement were identified there was an action plan to demonstrate that these would be addressed.

People and relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint and were comfortable to do so. There was a complaints policy and complaints received were responded to appropriately and used to improve and develop the home.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Systems were in place to help ensure people were not prevented from receiving the care and support they needed due to their health or disability. Staff told us they worked with external professionals to help ensure people received the relevant health and social care support they required.

The home had been adapted to ensure it met people’s needs. The home was set over 5 floors; there was a passenger lift that allowed level access throughout the home. There was information in the lift to direct people to the correct floor, for example, the dining room. There was signage on toilets, dining room and lounges. One person told us that they were able to find their way to where they wanted to go, but the home, “Was a bit of a maze.” We discussed the idea of adding directional signage with the registered manager, to assist people finding their way around the home. The registered manager told us this was something they would discuss with people at a future meeting.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff were aware of the importance of ensuring people were not subject to inequality or discrimination due to their age or health needs. They supported people to receive the appropriate care and treatment by building effective relationships with people, their families and health and social care professionals.

People were not prevented from living a full a life as possible due to their age or frailty. There were activities planned for each day, and this included trips out, chosen by people, for example the Christmas pantomime. Currently, people were meeting with pupils from a local school as part of the intergenerational opera program. This is where schools and people from the community, including care homes, participate in joint workshops to create music with support from professional opera singers. They work towards performing a concert for families and carers. Staff told us that people who attended really enjoyed the experience. This was open to all at the home and people attended when they felt able.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People and their families were supported to make decisions about the care and support they would like at the end of their lives. Some people and / or their families did not wish to discuss their preferences and these wishes were respected. Staff told us they would remind people and families when care was reviewed, or if there was a change in the person’s health, that end of life needs could be discussed. One person told us, “They ask you about your needs and what you need regularly. They handle death beautifully. I've told them regardless that I want to be here. I have a Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) and they all know that.”

Some people had ReSPECT forms in place (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment). These included whether or not the person wished to be resuscitated in the event of a cardiac arrest. People and their families were involved in these discussions.

Grosvenor House has been accredited with The Gold Standards Framework (GSF). The GSF provides training to staff to enable them to care well for people in the last years of their lives. The aim of the GSF is, “to ensure every person in the UK can live well before they die and die well in the place and manner of their choosing.” The training supports staff to regularly reassess and identify earlier a decline in people’s health. This helps to ensure end of life care is planned and well thought out. Staff spoke about the usefulness of the GSF, explaining it provided a framework on which to base their assessments and identify changes.