• Care Home
  • Care home

Grafton Lodge

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

40 Goddington Road, Rochester, Kent, ME2 3DE (01634) 722621

Provided and run by:
Sathya Care Ltd

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

Assessment report published 26 October 2026

Ratings

  • Overall

    Good

  • Safe

    Requires improvement

  • Effective

    Good

  • Caring

    Good

  • Responsive

    Good

  • Well-led

    Good

Our view of the service

Date of assessment: 06 October 2026 to 16 October 2026. Grafton Lodge is a residential care home providing accommodation for persons who require personal care. We completed this assessment after receiving concerns about fire safety and because the service had not been assessed since 1 March 2023.

The service is registered to provide support to 22 older people, younger people, people with physical disabilities, people with sensory impairments and people living with dementia. At the time of our assessment 20 people lived at the service, 3 of whom were in hospital. At our last inspection we had rated the service requires improvement and there were breaches of regulations in relation to dignity and respect, safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing.

At this assessment we found the quality of the service had improved and breaches of regulations previously found had been met. However, there remained some areas for improvement at the service. Risk assessment records were inconsistent, and not all individual risks had been identified. People with pressure injuries or those at high risk of pressure injuries had not always been repositioned in line with their risk assessments. Building maintenance and renovation remained ongoing. The provider carried out some works to remove immediate safety risks whilst we were on site, and others were added to the action plan of works. We found that on the first day there were not enough staff to meet people’s needs. On day 2 senior staff told us that additional staff had been rostered on shift because people’s needs had changed. Cleaning records showed that on occasions people’s rooms were not cleaned as the housekeeping staff had run out of time. Some records also reflected people’s rooms were not cleaned if people were in their room. We observed a person’s medicines not being given in accordance with the prescriber’s instructions. Assessments and care plans had not always been reviewed on a regular basis.

Staff treated people with kindness and knew people well. Staff spent time with people encouraging them to participate in activities and maintain important relationships with their families and friends. Staff received training and support to carry out their roles. Relatives felt involved and told us communication was good. The service was mostly clean and tidy, and people’s rooms were personalised. Staff described a supportive and inclusive workplace where cultural, religious, family and childcare needs were respected. Safeguarding and whistleblowing policies were in place and were accessible to staff. These policies gave staff the information they needed in terms of reporting. People had choices of food which met their assessed needs.

The provider had a clear process to escalate health concerns in a timely manner.

People living at the service had access to health care professionals to meet their health needs. People’s choices were listened to and respected.

People's experience of this service

We observed staff interactions with people and observed care and support in communal areas. We observed kind and caring interactions between staff and people. Staff treated people with kindness and knew people well. People's feedback about the service was positive. People felt valued and told us they appreciated the friendships they had developed whilst living at the service. Comments included, “I do feel safe”, “There are lots of people around to help me if I need it”, “If I press the buzzer, they come quickly and do their best” and “I leave [my door] open at night and I feel very safe.” People also commented, “Most of them (staff) know what I need without checking”, “I had a choice of two homes and I picked this one. I interviewed them and [registered manager] was there. She answered in a way that I liked, so here I am”, “The staff know my needs and are very good”, “Everyone here is very nice”, “They are very good at protecting my dignity”, “I would prefer to be at home, but I would come back”, “Staff are skilled”, “[I like] the company. I have made some nice friends”, “We have a lot of activities. We have painting, art and bingo”, “I do feel safe living here” and “I have made friends with some people”.

Relatives told us they would recommend the service and felt it was well managed. They told us, “There is nothing I don’t like. It is always very clean. My mum’s room is clean, tidy and safe. They are just lovely there and I see the staff out and about and they always come and speak to me. They have nice parties. I feel the staff care about her”, “I think [registered manager] is doing a good job. We have monthly meetings with them. She is good at keeping us informed”, “I feel being there she has become more social. I am very happy with the home”, “I feel that my mum is safe because they are hands-on. They seem to really know her”, “The management are very good at communicating. Usually, one of us can take a call or we get an email. I think they are doing a good job managing the service”, “I would not hesitate to recommend this home to anyone. It is amazing”, “I have nothing but praise, staff are amazing, [registered manager] is amazing” and “They all work so hard, above and beyond. They are so professional.”