Grove House Home for Older People

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always review people's needs regularly enough.

Although the provider completed assessments about people’s needs, we found these were not always reviewed in a timely manner. Information in some assessments did not match, which could be confusing for staff. However, we found that staff had good knowledge about people’s needs, and staff supported people with their health and wellbeing. The provider used an electronic system to record care plans which staff could access easily. Staff recorded care notes on handheld devices which managers could monitor. This prompted staff to complete required care tasks as the appropriate times.

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.

The provider used recognised tools to manage people’s needs, for example around falls risks, risk of weight loss and skin health. Staff were aware of specific dietary needs and how to meet them, for example people who had diabetes or pureed meals. Policies reflected recent guidance and links to legislation.

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.

The provider worked well with other agencies. The home benefitted from a weekly GP ward round and input from an advanced practitioner to help manage people’s health and wellbeing. Staff made referrals and supported people to attend health appointments.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control.

There was a lack of stimulation for people and staff did not have enough time to support people with activities. We received feedback that people were lonely. People were not always supported to exercise. A person said, “My health is monitored by the home. All my appointments are arranged for me whether it’s the GP or hospital. There are some exercise classes, but they could be improved.” A relative said, “There doesn't appear to be a lot going on. I am my [relative’s] company.” Another relative said, “I think there could be a little more to do on a daily basis.”

There was a part time activities co-ordinator, and the provider planned to recruit more.

All food was prepared freshly on site, and there was some choice available for people. Some people told us they would like more variety.

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 monitored people’s outcomes such as food and fluid, and weight for people who had been assessed as being at risk. Staff knew how to identify any changes in people’s health and wellbeing and escalated if required. People’s outcomes were recorded on the electronic system and managers monitored regularly.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff considered people’s capacity to consent during all their caring tasks. We saw Mental Capacity Act assessments and best interest’s decisions recorded in people’s care plans. The manager applied to the local authority if someone was at risk of being deprived of their liberty and monitored expiry dates. We saw consent forms for issues such as vaccinations, and support with medicines. Staff completed relevant training to support their practice around capacity and consent.