Grove House Home for Older People

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 68 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices due to other pressures.

Although the care we observed was tailored to people’s needs as much as possible, it was challenging for staff to provide a holistic approach due to time constraints. This meant that at times people’s choices around activities could not always be met. Both people and their relatives were overwhelmingly positive about the care they received, however said that they would like to participate in more meaningful activities.

People’s rooms were personalised with different and interesting items of their choice, and care plans were written in a person-centred way.

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.

Managers were committed to providing flexible care for people and arranged for the same staff team to support people on the units to make sure care provision was continuous. People said they got to know the staff well and felt that staff knew their needs well. The manager arranged regular reviews of care and invited family members and other representatives that were involved in people’s care, such as social workers, advocate and health professionals. The provider arranged for extra care if people’s needs changed, for example following a fall.

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

The provider could tailor written information as appropriate and made use of translation services and advocates.

A relative said, “The home are very good at communicating with us either about the care or in general about the home.”

There were communication plans in people’s records and staff used different aids to communicate with people, and some staff use sign language to support a person who had a learning disability.

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.

People told us they were regularly asked about their care and whether they needed anything to be changed. A person said, “Staff do come round and talk about the food and activities. We can make suggestions and give our opinions, we see the changes made.” another person said, “I always know I can have someone to talk to if I have a worry.”

The managers sent out surveys to family members. A relative said, “I have been asked for feedback by the home, either in a chatting situation or on formal feedback questionnaires.”

Review meetings were arranged, a relative told us, “I have had lots of meetings about [relative]. I can raise issues, and they are always acted on.” The home had a suggestion box in the reception area.

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

The building and premises were accessible, and there were photographs and signs on the walls to help people who had dementia find their way around the home.

People could use adapted bathrooms to support their personal care needs, and appropriate mobility aids were arranged for people. Care was flexible and the manager was committed to supporting discharges from hospital in a crisis situation.

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.

The management team were aware of barriers to outcomes of care, and there were appropriate policies regarding equality and discrimination. Staff completed training to help them identify and address equality and discrimination. Managers advocated on behalf of people with a learning disability, or people who were living with dementia, and aimed to increase other professionals’ understanding in order that people received the appropriate support.

People were not always 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.

Although there was limited guidance in care plans about how to support people who were at the end of their life, family members were positive about the support provided to their relative. A relative said, “I have had a good and reassuring meeting with the staff to look at end-of-life care. This has been of great comfort to me. With a plan in place [my relative] can have a pain free peaceful passing. The managers updated care plans following our feedback.