Grove House Home for Older People

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 62 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The vision of the service was evident at every level, including on every agenda for team meetings and team briefs. Managers led by example and made sure that staff shared the same vision for good quality care during recruitment and induction, and during staff supervision sessions. Appropriate policies and procedures were in place to support equality and diversity, and inclusion.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The different levels of managers were visible within the service and staff said they were approachable. Leaders had the right skills, knowledge and experience to guide their staff. The management team was stable and senior staff and leaders had worked at the home for some time. The deputy manager was acting as interim manager during the assessment period as the registered manager was away from work.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

There were freedom to speak up and whistleblowing policies. Staff said they felt confident in raising issues and concerns and felt they would be listened to.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The management team were committed to promoting inclusive policies and practices and there were appropriate policies. Staff did not note any concerns in this area.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

At the previous assessment we found that clinical audits had not identified or improved some areas of practice. We found the same concerns at this assessment. Care plan audits had not identified or addressed discrepancies within care records meaning information was out of date. We found concerns around medicines management which had not been identified on the provider audits.

We found gaps in the leadership of medicines management as no senior staff had responsibility for this. Care staff administered medicines during busy periods, and there was a risk mistakes could be made due to constant interruptions.

The provider monitored and investigated incidents and safeguarding alerts, and this was an improvement following the previous assessment.

The manager submitted statutory notifications to relevant bodies which was their legal responsibility to do so.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider had good working relationships with partners such as the local authority safeguarding teams and mental health teams. Staff established links with the local community and businesses such as the library, cafes, schools and nurseries. The local cub group visited the home and people enjoyed these events. There were links with local faith groups and people enjoyed visits from the local vicar and priest. Staff made connections with the local mosque so that people could maintain links and enable them to practice their worship.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

Although leaders and staff were encouraged to and committed to participating in training development to supplement their roles, not enough attention was given to audits to make sure concerns were identified and improvements made.