When we visited Grosvenor House Care Home, we spoke with the provider, the registered manager, two registered nurses, one member of care staff, three people who used the service, four relatives and a nurse from the local NHS Trust. Speaking with these people helped answer our five questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service safe?
We saw the service had a medication management policy in place. All medicines were administered by registered nurses. The service was subject to regular review and actions were taken to minimise risk.
The provider had appropriate security arrangements in place to protect people. We found that the entrance door was secure and visitors could only enter the building with the knowledge of the staff. People told us they felt safe and secure in the home and had the freedom to go outside if they wished.
Is the service effective?
We looked at three care plans. People's individual needs were assessed before they began to use the service.
The service benefitted from individual staff members who had a primary responsibility for specific care issues. These included care of diabetes, dementia, and people at risk from tissue damage caused by inactivity.
We saw people's care was planned and delivered in line with their individual needs. Each person had a care plan in place which provided personalised information. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that staff understood people's care and support needs and they knew them well.
Is the service caring?
Care plans had been regularly reviewed to ensure there was up-to-date information on the person's needs and how these were to be met.
People were comfortable, well dressed and clean which demonstrated staff took time to assist people with their personal care needs.
The atmosphere throughout the home was relaxed and we saw staff took time to talk to people. Staff spoke with people respectfully, gave good eye contact and gave people the opportunity to respond.
Is the service responsive?
Care plans recorded what each person could do independently and identified areas where the person required support. When people moved into the service detailed assessments took place which ensured people's independence was maintained.
We saw when people required care from another health care professional this was efficiently arranged.
Is the service well led?
We saw there were robust systems in place to assess and check appropriate and safe care was being delivered. These included daily, monthly and yearly internal audits. These audits included monitoring checks on the safety and maintenance of the service and to obtain the views of staff and people who used the service.
We found the service had an effective quality assurance system in place and any identified actions had led to improvements in the service that people received.
Staff were monitored and supervised in their role to ensure they knew how to provide a high standard of care. The manager told us a range of policies and procedures had been developed to support staff in their role.
Audits were carried out on the environment and services provided. This was to identify, monitor and manage risks to people who used, worked in or visited the service. Examples of these included environmental, medication and support plan audits.
The provider completed a quality survey from people who used the service. This helped people to voice their opinions and comment on all aspects of the service.
Staff told us regular staff meetings were held and they felt comfortable raising issues with the management of the home. Staff said they were confident that they would be listened to and action taken if needed.