Grosvenor House

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

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to consent to care and treatment. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.
 

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 made sure people’s care remained effective by assessing and reviewing their health, wellbeing and communication needs regularly, and in collaboration with them and their families where appropriate.

Care plans were reviewed monthly or sooner if people’s needs changed. People were actively involved in shaping their care, and staff respected relative’s input or personal preferences around who should be included. For example, staff worked closely with people’s relatives to ensure decisions respected their cultural backgrounds and preferences.

Others chose not to involve relatives. This was fully respected to uphold their privacy and independence. Where people had full capacity, they shared their end-of-life wishes on their own. This included details like preferred flowers. This helped make their care personal and respected what they wanted.

People’s past histories and preferences informed both care and daily routines. Sensory and emotional needs were reflected in activity planning.

Key workers and “resident of the day” reviews ensured care remained person centred. Where people had limited verbal communication, preferences were explored through observation, visual prompts, and regular feedback from relatives.

The provider made sure people felt safe both mentally and physically. They adapted activities to help with moving around and taking part. This showed they carefully reviewed people’s needs with respect and took action to support them better.

One person who did not use words to communicate had consented, alongside their representative, to the use of a facial expression tracking app to help staff understand their emotional responses. The decision was documented in their care plan and communication passport. Staff were trained to use the app alongside the person's usual gestures. It was clearly recorded that the person could withdraw consent at any time.

Staff planned and delivered care and support based on current legislation, evidence-based best practice, and what mattered most to the individual. People’s needs, preferences, and routines shaped their care. For example, a person supported the registered manager with paperwork daily to feel involved in the running of the home and build their confidence.

The provider actively worked with external professionals including the speech and language team, GP, learning disability team, and falls prevention team to review care regularly and ensure it aligned with up-to-date guidance.

The provider made sure that everyone was treated fairly, with respect, and included in decisions about their care.

People were supported in ways that reflected their choices, upheld their rights, and promoted their wellbeing. This meant they had more control over their daily lives, felt listened to and respected, and received care that truly met their individual needs.

Staff worked well with other professionals to make sure people got the care and support they needed. They shared clear information when people moved between providers, and helped people prepare for appointments so their voices were heard.

Staff recorded important information in people’s care plans. This included their life history, medical needs, and how they preferred to be supported. For example, one person had diabetes and was also at risk of choking. Staff worked with health professionals to plan safe meals and supported the person to see their GP regularly.

Staff used an electronic system to keep care records up to date. This made it easier to share important information with other professionals, like doctors or emergency services. Everyone involved could quickly see accurate details about the person’s needs, health, and support, which helped them work better together and make safer decisions.

A care assistant said the team always worked together and felt well supported by managers. Our findings confirmed that staff regularly worked with health teams, shared up-to-date records, and followed professional advice to keep people safe and well.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff planned care around people’s routines, health conditions, and sensory needs. They respected personal preferences, like eating late or choosing takeaways, while promoting healthier choices and checking for risks such as weight loss or dehydration.

They worked with GPs, dietitians, and district nurses to manage conditions like diabetes, epilepsy, and mental health. Staff used tools like blood sugar logs and a digital pain app to monitor health closely.

Staff also arranged appointments around each person’s needs and spotted early signs of illness or distress, especially in people who were not able to communicate with words. This helped people get treatment early and stay well.
People had clear health goals. Staff supported these through daily routines and community exercise.

Staff scheduled appointments to fit people’s needs to help more people access health care. They spotted early signs of distress, especially in those with communication needs. These actions helped people get care sooner, preventing worse health problems and supporting healthier lives.

Health goals, including lowering cholesterol and increasing physical activity, were clearly identified. People were encouraged to join regular community exercise and supported to stay active during daily routines. One person had a planned surgery, which they were happy to go ahead with.

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.

One person, who communicated verbally, was supported with sensitive and flexible communication. According to care plans, on quieter days, staff used short, clear questions and allowed time for responses without pressure. They avoided interrupting if the person stuttered and adjusted how they spoke depending on the time of day and the person’s mood. The person was encouraged to have their say and staff gave them space to express preferences.

Another person who did not communicate with words or sign language was supported using familiar non-verbal cues. These cues were understood as valid forms of consent or dissent. Staff explained care tasks in advance using simple words so the person could prepare or show reluctance. This showed that staff took active steps to include the person in decisions and respected their communication style.

These approaches demonstrated that the provider valued and respected people’s rights. People were involved in decisions about their care using communication that worked for them, whether verbal or non-verbal, and consent was always sought in line with their abilities and preferences.

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

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to consent to care and treatment. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

Staff adapted communication to each person’s needs, using symbols, gestures, and observing behaviours to understand consent or refusal. Care plans provided clear guidance on how each person expressed their choices, and staff consistently recorded this in daily notes. They allowed time and calm settings for people to process information and involved families and professionals in decisions when needed.

Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, such as decisions around their accommodation, personal care, or use of safety measures, the provider completed appropriate mental capacity assessments. Best interest decisions were recorded with clear justifications, in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Each person had documented consent for care, information sharing, and photography. Records included who completed the process and when, showing consent was regularly reviewed and not treated as a one-off event.

This approach ensured consent was an ongoing part of care, not just a formality, which respected individual rights and supported people to make informed choices about their wellbeing.