Grosvenor House

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Improvements were identified 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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

At our last assessment, the service was in breach of the regulation for person-centred care. Care plans lacked sufficient detail and personalisation, and people’s changing needs, such as falls, choking risks, and diabetes, were not properly assessed or reviewed. Support was not consistently adapted for people with communication challenges or complex health needs, meaning care was not always responsive.

At this assessment, those concerns had been addressed. Care plans were clear, regularly reviewed, and tailored to each person’s needs and preferences. Staff supported individuals in line with their routines, cultural or religious practices, and communication styles. Visual aids were used to help people make informed choices and remain involved in their care. Reasonable adjustments were made proactively, and staff were trained to deliver consistent, person-centred support. People told us they felt listened to and supported in ways that suited them.

People were recognised as individuals with their own history, values, routines and preferences. Care and support were shaped in partnership with people around what mattered most to each person and how they communicated those needs.

For example, one person’s care reflected their desire for independence, cultural identity, and control over their personal finances. Staff understood that maintaining familiar routines helped them feel settled and in control. Their care plan detailed how to support them safely while respecting autonomy, including the importance of giving clear, time-specific responses to requests rather than saying “no,” which could trigger distress.

Staff used personalised communication strategies, including offering choices, acknowledging emotions, and using shared interests, like music, gardening, or TV to build trust and encourage expression. Daily routines were adapted to accommodate people’s preferences, such as support with ordering specific takeaway meals, flexible wake-up times, and room access for privacy.

People’s voice was central to how support was delivered. Staff understood people’s communication styles, respected their values, and responded flexibly to their choices. This enabled people to live a life that reflected who they were and what mattered to them.

The provider understood people’s diverse health and care needs and worked with local professionals to ensure care was joined-up, flexible, and supported choice and continuity.

Staff quickly recognised changes in people’s health and used positive behaviour support plans and professional input to meet communication or sensory needs.

People were supported in line with their routines and preferences. Staff involved them in planning meals that reflected cultural needs and adapted dishes to suit individual abilities.

Staff used best interests processes and safeguarding input to make safe, appropriate decisions.

Daily handovers and monthly reviews helped keep care consistent and up to date. Staff regularly updated risk assessments to reflect people’s changing capacity and wishes.

Rotas were planned to provide familiar staff and reduce reliance on agency workers, which supported trusting relationships and continuity of care.

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

One person’s plan detailed that they preferred short, clear sentences with pauses to allow time for processing. Staff were advised to ask simple yes/no questions instead of open-ended ones, especially in the mornings when the person was less talkative. Their plan also described how their mood could affect how they spoke, so staff could adapt their approach throughout the day.

Another person who did not use speech or sign language relied entirely on body language to express their preferences. Their plan clearly explained what different gestures meant. This gave staff a consistent way to understand the person’s views and adapt support accordingly.

One person’s plan recorded that they wanted staff to read all letters aloud to them and to keep the originals for reference. This helped them feel fully informed and in control of their personal affairs. Staff followed clear boundaries about confidentiality and respected how the person wanted information handled.

By tailoring how information was shared to each person’s needs, the provider made sure people were included in conversations and decisions that mattered to them.

The provider made it easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns. Staff listened and responded to what people and families said. Relatives were invited to meetings and took part in decisions about care. Feedback was taken seriously and acted on.

People who could not use verbal communication were supported to share their views. Staff understood each person’s unique communication style, including body language and behavioural cues. For example, a person might cross their arms or look away to show they did not want to take part in an activity. Staff recognised this and respected it, adjusting support as needed. These approaches were consistent across records and staff feedback.

Independent advocates supported people with complex needs by attending meetings, helping them understand their choices, and speaking up on their behalf during care planning. This made sure their rights and wishes were respected.

The provider made sure people got the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff looked at each person’s situation and made changes to remove any barriers that might stop them getting the right help.

People were supported in ways that worked for them. For example, appointments with health professionals were planned at times when people were more alert and likely to take part. Staff knew when someone was more comfortable or able to focus and used this to plan their care.

For people who found grey or dark days hard, the provider used special lighting to lift their mood. These were small but important changes based on what each person needed.

If someone found new or unfamiliar situations stressful, staff helped them prepare and broke things down into small steps. This helped people take part in personal care and attend health appointments more calmly.

When people couldn’t make decisions on their own, staff followed a clear process to make sure choices were in the person’s best interests. These decisions were regularly checked and updated to keep care safe and right for the person.

Staff and leaders recognised that people with learning disabilities or autistic people may not always have the same opportunities or experiences as others. They listened to what people and families said about this and made changes in response.

People were encouraged and supported to take part in meaningful community activities. Staff focused on each person’s strengths and what they enjoyed, helping them to lead fulfilling lives.

Where people might face barriers, such as from communication or complex health needs, staff looked at how this might affect their outcomes and adapted support to reduce inequality. A staff member stated, “Everyone is treated well and respected.”

Plans and routines were shaped around people’s individual needs and circumstances, ensuring they received not just the same provider, but the right provider for them.

People were supported to think about their future care in a way that suited them. Staff took time to understand how each person wanted to be supported with changes in their life, including health needs, ageing, or end-of-life care decisions.

Some people had already shared clear preferences about the care they wanted, and this was recorded respectfully. For others who did not want to talk about these topics, staff respected their choice but made sure emergency care instructions were in place just in case.

Staff used gentle, person-centred approaches to revisit these topics at appropriate times, helping people feel more comfortable over time. Plans were flexible and adapted as people's needs and choices changed.