Grovelands

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 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 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 registered manager and deputy manager led by example. They fostered a culture of learning at the homeand a passion to get it right for people and staff. Any areas for improvement discussed during our assessment were considered and acted upon.

Accidents and incidents were investigated and learning from these was used to support staff to continually improve their practice, reduce risk and keep people safe.

The provider had systems in place to support staff to report and record safety concerns and events. Staff told us how they recorded accidents and incidents on the provider’s electronic care system. They said the registered manager asked for more information if needed and any learning would be fed back to them.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Before people moved to Grovelands, staff obtained information about their needs from them and others involved in their care. This information was used to develop individualised care and risk management plans to ensure people received safe and appropriate care and support from the moment they moved into Grovelands.

People said they were supported to attend health care appointments and saw a GP if needed. A relative told us, “They call the GP if they are ever needed.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The registered manager, deputy manager and staff understood the different types of abuse and how to safeguard people. Staff were consistent in explaining how they would respond to any concerns by reporting to the management team and were confident they would be addressed.

People and relatives told us Grovelands was a safe place to live. One person said, “This is a great place to live, we are all very happy here.”

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff understood people’s capacity to make decisions about the care and support they received. Staff had received up to date safeguarding, MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training. This meant, staff were knowledgeable about how to protect people from abuse and neglect and if required, support restrictions on people’s liberty lawfully and in their best interests.

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.

There were robust systems in place to manage risks to people. This included assessing people’s individual risk and generic risks at the home.

The registered manager and staff team worked to minimise risks to people at risk of falls. The provider held a monthly governance meeting, where falls prevention was discussed. Staff worked closely with the community rehabilitation team to assess and make recommendations about walking aids and equipment, to minimise the risks of falls. Staff were aware of where people were and remained present and available in case people required their assistance.

People’s care records contained up to date and accurate information, which ensured staff had access to the guidance they needed to prevent or appropriately manage risks to people, to keep them safe. Staff spoken with were confident they had access to people’s information. For example, they knew where to access people’s eating and drinking support plans if a person had been assessed as at risk of choking.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The home was well maintained and people’s rooms were personalised.

There were effective arrangements to monitor the safety and upkeep of the premises. Regular checks were completed to help ensure the safety of the home’s physical environment and fire safety equipment.

Staff told us they had clear guidelines available to help them deal with emergencies. In relation to fire safety, we saw emergency evacuation plans were in place to help staff evacuate people in an emergency.

Equipment used to support people, such as mobile hoists were regularly serviced and maintained.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People living in the care home and their relatives told us staff were well-trained and had the skills required to support them safely.

People were supported by staff who worked well together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staffing levels matched the staff duty rota on the day of our site visit. Staff were quick to respond to people’s requests for support.

The registered manager confirmed they had a full staff team at the home and did not need to use agency staff. In the provider’s ‘service improvement plan’ they had recorded, ‘Staff retention and training remain priorities. We recognise that consistent, well-trained staff are vital to delivering meaningful care and building relationships with residents.’

Staff complete a dependency tool for each person to assess the staff levels needed to support them. Staff were observed being kind and courteous, taking time to gain consent and were not rushed.

The provider operated safe recruitment practices and only suitable staff were employed to work at the care home. All required documents were in place, such as satisfactory references and criminal record checks. Any gaps in employment were explored.

Staff told us they had an induction when they started working at Grovelands. This included 2 days at the provider’s main office. They undertook shadow shifts with an experienced staff member until they felt comfortable to work alone.

Staff received a mixture of e-learning and in-person practical and theoretical training, which was routinely refreshed as frequently as staff required it including, competency-based assessments. Staff told us they received regular training, so it remained up to date and relevant to their role. The provider’s training matrix confirmed this.

One member of staff told us they had undertaking training to give them a sense of what living with dementia was like and how much they learned from this. Staff were undertaking manual handling refresher training during our visit and told us they found it helpful.

Staff received regular supervisions and had their overall work performance appraised annually.

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

People lived in a clean, hygienic environment. The housekeeping team ensured the home was clean and free from odours. We observed housekeeping staff carrying out cleaning tasks and also interacting with people. A relative told us, “The premises are always spotlessly clean too, it’s never dirty.”

There was appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) available throughout the home. Care staff completed infection and prevention control training and had their competency assessed.

The management team undertook a program of infection control audits and any concerns were acted upon promptly.

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.

Medicines were safely managed. One person told us, “I used to do my own meds [medicines], but my hands struggle with the packets, so they [staff] do it for me now. I always get my meds on time, no problem there.”

An electronic recording system was in use at the home. The provider’s medicines policy reflected the electronic medicines system, to ensure staff had clear guidance to be able to use it effectively.

There were 2 staff medicine ‘champions’ who had good oversight of the system. Staff who administered medicines had training and had an annual competency assessment completed.

A staff member told us, “The pharmacy visits [to complete an audit], they have been brilliant. It validates we are doing medicines safely and well."