Grosvenor House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff were observed to interact patiently and gently. For example, one staff member sat at eye-level while speaking with a person to maintain their dignity and ensure they were listening and responding carefully

Staff supported people in ways that were personalised and compassionate. One person’s care was centred around their routines, life history, and strong bonds with relatives. They were supported to maintain regular visits from a close relative and were given privacy and time together in a way that respected their relationship. Staff understood the importance of this relationship and supported the person before and after visits to help them feel settled and calm.

Cultural identity and personal beliefs were recognised and respected. For example, one person was supported to attend their place of worship regularly, and their care included food and routine preferences aligned with their background.

Communication and sensory preferences were clearly understood. Staff explained what they were going to do and waited for permission before starting personal care. They did not start providing care without warning because it could cause distress or make people feel unsafe.

Staff used consistent, clear communication to reduce distress. Individuals were supported with access to preferred items, such as writing pads or music, that helped them feel calm and in control. This reflected an understanding of each person’s emotional wellbeing and how to support them compassionately during anxious or unsettled times.

One person told us, “They [staff] always speak to me nicely.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Staff supported people’s daily choices and respected their preferences around how they spent their time. One person we spoke to described enjoying time in the garden, shopping trips, and choosing their own routine. This showed that staff encouraged independence and personalised support. Staff respected people’s different cultures and religious needs.

Support plans were tailored to the individual and included clear, personalised guidance for staff to provide care to each person. For example, in relation to managing seizures. Staff had a good understanding of what was important to people and worked with health professionals to ensure support reflected their needs and wishes.

The provider supported people’s independence through personalised activity plans and flexible daily routines. People chose how to spend their time, including when to get up, take part in activities they enjoyed, like music, religion, or sensory sessions, and when to rest. This helped people feel in control, valued, and respected. A person said, “I do what I want when I want to.”

Staff supported people to take part in activities they enjoyed, such as outings with relatives, garden walks, or sensory activities

They encouraged and helped people do tasks themselves, like making drinks and managing personal care, to promote independence.

People were involved in decisions about their care, including medicines and daily routines, and their preferences were always respected. For example, one person asked not to be woken before a specific time, and staff adjusted the daily schedule to suit them. Another person chose which staff supported them with personal care, and this was clearly recorded and followed.

Staff respected personal choices about sexuality and culture. When people chose not to discuss these topics, staff respected their wishes. They stayed ready to support anyone who wanted to talk about them later.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views, and wishes. Staff consistently responded to people in a timely manner in the moment and acted to minimise discomfort or distress.

During the inspection, staff quickly responded to people’s needs, such as fetching a cardigan for one person when they said they were cold and calmly reassuring and redirecting another person who appeared unsettled, showing attentive care and respect for individual preferences.

Staff understood how people communicated. They used tools like pictures and visual cues to help people express their choices. This ensured everyone was heard, involved, and received care that respected their preferences.

Where people had specific routines or environmental preferences, these were respected. A person who preferred quiet, low-stimulation settings was supported to visit places such as the local library or quiet outdoor spaces rather than busier environments, helping to reduce anxiety and enhance their wellbeing.

Daily handovers and morning meetings enabled the team to share up-to-date information about people’s moods, presentation, and health. This helped ensure the whole staff team responded consistently and promptly to any emotional or physical changes in people’s needs.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff reported feeling valued, supported, and part of a strong, collaborative team. Many described a family-like culture where they felt listened to and included in decision-making. Formal supervision and appraisals were in place and described as supportive and reflective, helping staff set goals and develop professionally.

Staff felt confident in their roles and proud of their work. A staff member said, “If I can make one person’s life better, that’s enough for me.”

Rotas were described as fair and flexible, with staffing levels appropriate to meet people's needs. Staff said they were able to access support quickly when required and felt confident raising concerns or ideas.