Grangewood Lodge Residential Home

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.

The provider implemented a system to assess and review people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs, involving people, or their representatives, wherever possible. The provider offered people the opportunity to visit the care home prior to them offering a placement to ensure the care home provided the right environment for the person and their family. Relatives told us they were involved as necessary and received good communication about updates and changes. People were supported in line with their care plans by staff using people’s preferred communication and respecting their choices.

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.

Nationally recognised tools were used to inform people’s care and daily care records showed people received support in line with their assessed needs. For example, where it was identified through specialist assessment people required support to reduce the risk of choking. Staff understood people’s needs and followed support plan guidance to help keep people safe.

People’s weights were monitored regularly and any concerns managed. For example, people were offered specialist diets in line with their nutrition needs. Staff understood the importance of monitoring, how to identify a change in a person’s needs and what actions to take to manage this. One relative told us, “[Relative] has a restricted diet due to their condition, there is no issue with the food provided and they enjoy it.”

People were given choices in what they wanted to eat and drink. People enjoyed the food offered and could request what they preferred, including a vegetarian and vegan diet.

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 with other professionals.

Systems were in place to share information with professionals as required. Staff understood what changes triggered a referral for specialist assessment and support for people. Visiting professionals easily accessed the information they needed for assessments and treatments whilst at the home. One professional told us, “Staff are great here. They make appropriate referrals, are available to support the visits to the home, notes are always accessible and they do as advised for the person”.

The provider aim was to provide a care home for life for people who wanted it to be, and they worked closely with medical professionals to help this happen.

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.

People were supported by relevant healthcare professionals as required. Staff identified when specialist support was required and followed any recommendations made to achieve good outcomes for people.

A telephone ward round with the GP to review people’s health needs was carried out weekly. There were systems in place to raise changes in people’s needs or deterioration in health. The provider worked well with the pharmacist who supported the review of people’s medicines.

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.

People’s clinical risks were clearly outlined in their care records, including signs and symptoms of people’s deteriorating health. Staff understood how to monitor people’s health and well-being and how to record and report any changes, as well as keeping people involved as much as possible. Prompt action was taken to ensure people achieved good outcomes.

Relatives were happy with the communication from the home about their relative’s health. One relative told us, “The home is on the ball with contacting us. We are kept informed of any issues we need to know about.”

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

Mental capacity assessments, where completed, followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when supporting people who lacked capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment. People had deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) in place where necessary.

Staff understood how people preferred to communicate and supported people to make everyday choices where possible.