Greville 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Prior to people moving into the home, their needs were assessed to determine if the home could meet their needs. The registered manager was clear about the focus of the home, where some diagnosis meant they could not meet people’s needs, and had a clear focus on the impact on other people living at the home. A relative told us, “The transition from home to here was great. [Relative] was settled within 6 weeks and said it’s my home now.” People were involved in developing their care plans so they could state how they wished their care to be delivered.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People received food they enjoyed as their preferences for meals had been sought. We saw mealtimes were a pleasant and calm experience and people were able to sit with who they wanted to. The cook understood people’s preferences and ensured these were incorporated into menu planning. We saw food was homecooked. Staff were aware of people’s individual dietary needs and how to meet them. A relative told us, “Drinks are brought round regularly and the quantity of food is good.” Another relative told us, “The food is lovely and the chef makes the most lovely meals, the food is amazing.”

The registered manager had recently introduced NEWS2 (National Early Warning Score) monitoring and was ensuring all staff had training on this. NEWS2 enables early indication of deteriorating health so healthcare can be sought promptly. We saw other methods were also used to monitor people’s health and well being where needed. For example, where a person was at risk of losing weight, care plans stated checks on the persons weight needed to occur monthly.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The provider had ensured clear communication strategies were implemented with other healthcare professionals. A professional told us, “Communication with primary care is consistently good, with staff providing clear information, escalating concerns appropriately and acting on clinical advice.” This ethos of working together meant people could achieve better outcomes.

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.

The provider had established strong links with the local general practice surgery. A named GP or advanced nurse practitioner visited the service weekly to monitor people’s wellbeing and health. This enabled consistent monitoring of people’s health by health professionals who had got to know people well. A person told us, “Healthcare is good, they get us a doctor when we need it and we were asked if wanted an appointment here or at the hospital.” A relative told us, “Any health issues [are] dealt with promptly.”

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.

We were informed of the positive outcomes people had experienced whilst living at Greville House. For example, one relative told us, “The home has close ties to the local GP surgery and as a consequence my [relative’s] health has improved, more mobile, eating better and has put on weight.” Another relative told us, “We thank our lucky stars we found this home.”

The registered manager was clear on wanting to achieve the best outcomes for people living at the home. They shared examples where they had noticed changes in people’s needs and had worked with families to improve people’s ability to achieve a fulfilled life.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The registered manager ensured that people’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were retained.

Where people were deemed to lack capacity, decision specific mental capacity assessments were in place and kept under review. Relatives were involved in making decisions where this was a person’s wish.

We saw people were involved in choices in their daily care and consent was sought by staff before supporting them. For example, we observed staff informing people about their medications before they were given to people. A relative told us, “Staff offer [relative] choice and show empathy toward her.” A staff member told us, “I will always ask for consent for washing hair or any personal care. If the person doesn’t want to consent I won’t do it.”