We carried out a review of the data available to us about Grosvenor Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Grosvenor Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Grosvenor Court accommodates up to 13 people. At the time of our inspection, 8 people were staying at the service. The service provides for people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder and people with physical disabilities.
The service had been registered before the development of guidance and values which are currently considered and underpin the Registering the Right Support. However, the values that underpin the guidance such as offering choice, promotion of independence and inclusion were evident in the support people received from staff so they can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
People’s experience of using this service:
• At our last inspection in August 2018 people did not always receive the support they needed.
• There was no registered manager in post, there were not always enough staff on duty and staff recruitment processes were not robust.
• Guidance for people with epilepsy needed improvement and medicines were not always available or always stored in line with guidance
• Records to reduce risks of dehydration were incomplete and security, fire and maintenance arrangements were not effective.
• Management audits and quality improvement checks had not identified some areas of concern or addressed some issues previously pointed out.
• After this inspection we issued two warning notices telling the provider the improvements needed and by when. The provider sent us an action plan setting out how they would they would do this.
• At this inspection significant improvement had been made, a registered manager was now in post and the breaches in regulations identified at the last inspection were now met.
• Systems to assess, monitor and improve the service were robust; the provider had invested in the maintenance of the service and the improvement in governance had impacted positively on the culture of the service.
• The quality of care people received had significantly improved since the last inspection, records were up to date and reviewed, guidance was in place for staff to consistently support people.
• Medicines practice had improved. The management team continuously reviewed medicines practice, including availability and storage to ensure people received their medicines safely.
• There were sufficient staff and recruitment practice had improved. The provider had carried out suitable checks to ensure staff were suitable to work with people.
• Feedback from a relative and our observation of the care provided were positive.
• Communication from staff was good and we saw the registered manager and staff were approachable. People and relatives commented on the caring attitudes of staff. People and relatives felt able to raise concerns if they had them.
• There was a positive atmosphere at the service. People were happy, and staff engaged with people in a kind and caring way. People were busy when we visited and engaging in activities.
• Staff were kind and caring, they had the skills and training needed to support people and were supported by the registered manager. People were encouraged to increase their independence and the service supported people to maintain relationships with family and friends.
• The registered manager and staff worked with a clear vision for the service.
Please see more information in Detailed Findings below.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection on 7 and 8 August 2018, the service was rated as Requires Improvement. At this inspection we found the service had improved to Good overall.
Why we inspected:
This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services based on their previous rating to check the safety and quality of care people received.
We will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with our reinspection schedule for those services rated Good.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Grosvenor Court is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Grosvenor Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to 17 people who have a learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder and some physical disabilities. With the exception of the accommodation on the top floor, the service is accessible to people in wheelchairs. At the time of our inspection there were eight people living at the service. Staff provided for people’s day to day basic care needs, however many shortfalls highlighted where some needs were not being met.
The service had not been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. However, the values that underpin the guidance such as offering choice, promotion of independence and inclusion were evident in the support people received from staff so that they can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At the last inspection on 8 August 2017 the service was overall rated as requires improvement. We asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions of safe, effective and well led to at least good which was not provided. Since then the service had experienced a period of unsettled management. The provider had placed an interim manager in post until a permanent manager could be found and the interim manager had registered with the Commission and was present for part of the inspection. They had provided some stability for the staff team and enabled work to commence on addressing previous shortfalls. A new permanent manager has now been appointed who told us that they would be applying to the Commission to be registered; they were also present on both days of inspection.
We observed people in the communal areas spending time with staff and receiving support. We also observed staff carrying out their duties and how they communicated and interacted with each other and the people they supported.
We found that whilst improvements had been made to meet a previous breach regarding staff training, other breaches in respect of maintenance and equipment and quality assurance had not been fully met. We have rated the service as Requires Improvement overall, this is the fourth consecutive time the service has been rated Requires Improvement.
At this inspection we found further breaches of regulation that could impact on people’s safety. Medicines were administered and recorded appropriately. However, there were issues with their safe storage and ordering as this did not ensure that people always had their medicines available when they needed them or that they were stored in accordance with best practice guidance and manufacturers storage instructions. Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities to protect people from abuse; they were confident they would act if they witnessed or suspected abuse and knew how to escalate concerns. However, the procedure for the reporting of incidents and accidents although in place was not always followed; there was a potential risk that not all incidents were reported to the registered manager and considered as requiring a safeguarding alert. These omissions could place people at risk of incidents being overlooked. Accident and incident analysis needed improvement to inform assessment and mitigation of future risk.
Epilepsy guidance needed development and review to keep people safe and ensure support was provided in a timely manner. Fluid monitoring of people assessed as at risk of dehydration did not provide evidence people were receiving enough to drink.
Staff supervision and appraisal was infrequent. It did not provide staff with the opportunity to discuss training and development or provide management oversight of team strengths and weaknesses. Appraisals of staff work performance were not completed in line with the providers’ policy or regulatory expectations.
Staff had not received the appropriate training to undertake safe evacuation using evacuation equipment in the event of a fire. Some fire escapes were not alarmed so there was a risk people could leave the building unobserved by staff and place themselves at risk of harm.
The system for the recruitment and selection of staff was not effectively used. Some checks on staff suitability were not completed until after staff were in post.
Staff deployment and staff numbers needed review. Although staff attended to the needs of people our observations showed that they were not always able to flexibly spend time with people to give them the attention they wanted and needed for their emotional wellbeing. Although people were calm and relaxed and comfortable with staff, people sought staff attention and became restless and bored when this was not provided. Our observations also showed that staff carried out their duties respectfully and kindly, respecting people’s privacy and dignity and carrying out personal care tasks discreetly.
People were provided with activities but staff recognised these were not always suitable for some people’s needs and were working in partnership with occupational therapists to develop a more appropriate range of activities and stimulation for people.
Staff said they felt supported and that there was good communication and team work. They found the present registered manager approachable and they were encouraged to express their views, they felt listened to and regular staff meetings were held to keep them informed and updated. Senior management acknowledged the good work staff did and the quality of support they provided. Staff received appropriate induction and training to ensure they had the right skills and knowledge for their role and to support people safely. Staff had been trained in infection control and the service was clean, odour free and staff used protective clothing appropriately.
Individual risks were assessed and measures implemented to reduce these. Guidance was in place for staff to follow about the action they needed to take to protect people from harm. Care plans were person centred and reflected people’s individual needs and how they preferred to be supported; people and their relatives were consulted about these and they were kept under review. People were supported to retain their independence and to do as much for themselves as they could with staff on hand to help them. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were provided with meals that suited their specific dietary requirements and preferences. Staff monitored people’s health and supported them to access healthcare as and when needed. Staff understood people’s end of life choices and advanced decisions and would act accordingly when these needed to be implemented. The service was adapted to meet people’s physical care needs and provide accessibility to all communal and bedroom areas on the ground and first floor. A second floor was currently not in use but would suit people with good mobility who could use stairs.
Relatives spoke positively about the service, staff and the care their relatives received. They told us that they were always made welcome by staff and offered refreshments. They were surveyed for their comments and on an individual basis were responded to, but they never received feedback on how their or other responses had been used to influence service development.
There was a complaints procedure, relatives said they felt able to raise concerns and thought these would be listened to and acted upon.
We have made one recommendation in relation to activities.
We found two continued breaches and eight further breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.
The service is a large detached house. People’s bedrooms were located on the ground and first floors, people shared communal bathrooms, living and dining rooms as well as sensory lounge. The service had two additional bedrooms rooms, a lounge and kitchen area on the top floor. These were currently vacant but intended to accommodate people who could live more independently to help them develop the skills and confidence needed to move onto a supported living setting.
Our last inspection on 6 and 7 January 2016 found five breaches of our regulations and an overall rating of requires improvement was given at that inspection. As there were serious concerns about the numbers of suitably qualified, competent and skilled staff a warning notice was issued for the provider to take urgent action in this area. We issued four requirement actions for other breaches of regulations where the provider had failed to ensure safety checks of some equipment were carried out; had not maintained acceptable standards of cleanliness; had not assessed or met people’s social needs and had not developed effective systems or processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. The provider sent us an action plan after this inspection telling us how they would improve and when this work would be done.
The previous registered manager had left the service and an acting manager had been appointed and was present throughout the inspection; they had started the process of registering as manager of this service with the Commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Although the acting manager had prioritised the work needed to address the outstanding breaches, not all measures introduced were routinely embedded into the daily running of the service. At this inspection while we found the provider had met the previous warning notice and addressed the breaches of regulation, however, we also identified other areas where improvement was required.
Maintenance of the service was not completed quickly enough to reduce risks; some equipment was not available to use which impacted in people’s daily lives.
Most people were highly dependent on staff to support them to move and transfer, but training for staff to do this had, in some cases, lapsed for 18 months.
Quality assurance and safety monitoring processes while identifying most shortfalls were not effective in bringing about the changes needed. This placed people at risk.
Medicines were stored correctly, they were administered safely and proper records were kept.
Staff recruitment checks were complete and there were sufficient staff to support people safely and engage them in activities.
People were safe because staff understood how to protect people from the risk of abuse and the action they needed to take if they suspected a person was at risk.
There were low levels of incidents and accidents, these were managed appropriately and followed up with appropriate action or intervention as needed to keep people safe.
The acting manager, together with their staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards. They understood in what circumstances a person may need to be referred, and when there was a need for best interest meetings to take place. The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); people’s rights were respected and upheld.
People were able to choose their food each meal time and snacks and drinks were available. The food was home-cooked. Any risks of malnutrition were appropriately addressed.
Staff treated people with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well and remembered the things that were important to them so that they received person-centred care.
People had been involved in their care planning and care plans recorded the ways in which they liked their support to be given. Bedrooms were personalised and people’s preferences were respected. Independence was encouraged so that people were able to help themselves as much as possible.
The service showed an awareness of people’s changing needs and sought professional guidance, which was put into practice.
Staff felt that there was a culture or openness and honesty in the service and said they enjoyed working there. This created a comfortable and relaxed environment for people to live in.
Systems were in place to encourage feedback from people, relatives and staff and were subject to regular review. An accessible complaints process was in place and any complaints raised had been addressed in line with policy requirements.
The service was led by an acting manager who worked closely with the deputy manager and staff team. Staff recognised their individual roles and importance of team work. Staff were respectful and valued one another as well as people living at the service.
We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
The inspection took place on the 6 and 7 January 2016, this inspection was unannounced. Grosvenor Court provides accommodation and support for up to 17 people who may have a learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder or physical disabilities. At the time of the inspection nine people were living at the service.
The service is run by a registered manager who was present on both days of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Grosvenor Court was last inspected on 15 October 2014 and had been rated as requires improvement at that inspection. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) issued two Requirement Actions after this inspection. Areas of concern were: there were insufficient staff numbers to meet the needs of people and records were not accurate and lacked detail to reflect the care people were receiving. We asked the provider to submit an action plan to us to show how and when they intended to address these shortfalls.
At this inspection there continued to be insufficient staff to meet the needs of people. People did not receive the allocated one to one hours consistently that they were funded for. People who were not in receipt of one to one hours did not get many opportunities to leave the service and do outside activities.
Risk assessments were not always followed by staff or they were not updated with the most current information. We observed some practices which did not follow the guidance documented in the assessments.
Medicine was managed safely but the service had not followed its own policy in obtaining over the counter cream for people, which should have been agreed by the persons GP. Guidance had not been put in place for staff to know where creams should be applied, and some people would be unable to verbally communicate this with staff.
One person’s behaviours meant they could not be alone with other people using the service. The service could not demonstrate it would be able to meet the needs of this person due to insufficient staff available.
New staff had not fully completed their in house induction or been observed to check they were competent to support people alone.
There were some activities people could participate in within the service, but there was no activity plan to demonstrate meaningful or fulfilling activities were being offered to people. We observed times in the service when people where not engaged with any social interaction or stimulation.
Auditing was lacking in areas. For example, health and safety checks and auditing of one to one hours allocated. The service had made improvements in other areas such as reviewing records and had their own quality assurance systems in place to make further improvements.
Staff had a clear understanding of how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns and knew who to contact and how. Staff understood how to whistle blow and had access to numbers that they could phone in confidence.
Recruitment practices were safe, this helped to ensure people received care from appropriate staff. Staff completed the necessary training to undertake their roles effectively.
People had choice around their food and drink and were encouraged to make their own choices and decisions about this. If people declined their meal, an alternative was offered. People were encouraged to make other simple choices according to their communication abilities and complexity of needs.
People were supported to make complaints if they were unhappy with any part of their care and treatment and relatives had been informed about how they should make complaints if they needed to. Relatives told us they felt confident they could complain and be listened to.
Relatives were sent questionnaires to obtain their views about the service and the service actively sought their feedback. The service had received a number of compliments about the service they provided and the relatives we spoke with were complimentary about the care their loved one received.
We found five breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this report.
The inspection visit was unannounced on 15 October 2014. The previous inspection was carried out in December 2013, and there were no concerns noted.
Grosvenor Court is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 17 people who have a moderate to severe learning disability or have autism. The service was only providing accommodation for up to 13 people, as the double rooms had been reduced to single occupancy. At the time of the inspection there were 11 people living in the service.
The service is run by a registered manager, who was present on the day of the inspection visit. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated regulations about how the service is run.
Staffing levels were assessed according to the dependency of the people’s needs. The current levels were not always sufficient to make sure people received their additional one to one support in a timely way, which also had an impact on people, not being able to access the local community as part of their planned activities. There was no domestic staff employed at the service, therefore the care staff had additional duties to carry out during their planned shifts. Therefore, we could not be sure that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to make sure people’s health and welfare needs were fully met.
There were effective systems in place for ongoing staff training, including individual staff meetings, support and appraisals.
Staff files contained the required information, to show people were protected by robust recruitment procedures. New staff were taken through an induction programme, which included basic training subjects. They also worked alongside established staff, until they had been assessed as being competent to work on their own.
People were protected from the risk of harm, as staff had received appropriate safeguarding training and were aware of how to recognise and process safeguarding concerns. Staff knew about the whistle blowing policy, and were confident they could raise any concerns with the registered manager or outside agencies if needed.
The home had risk assessments in place for the environment, and for each individual person who received care. Assessments identified people’s specific needs, but did not always show how risks could be minimised. There were systems in place to review accidents and incidents and make any relevant improvements, to help reduce the risk of further occurrence.
Medicines were managed and administered appropriately. People received their medicines on time.
People were observed enjoying their lunch and had a choice about what and where to eat. They were supported to eat or drink to help ensure they received adequate food and drink.
Relatives told us that they were involved in their care planning, and that staff supported their family member in making arrangements to meet their health needs. Care plans had not always been reviewed and amended to show any changes in people’s individual care. The registered manager had an action plan in place to address this shortfall.
People were being supported to make decisions in their best interests. The registered manager and staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and related assessments and decisions had been properly taken.
Staff were familiar with people’s likes and dislikes, such as if they liked to be in company or on their own, and if they liked to take part in group activities.
The organisation had systems in place to obtain people’s views. These included formal and informal meetings, quality assurance surveys and daily contact with the registered manager.
Systems were in place for monitoring and auditing the quality of the service. The organisation’s quality team carried out regular visits to the home. The team completed audits of the systems and practice to assess the quality of the service, and findings were then used to make improvements.
Staff were fully aware of the ethos of the home, in that they were there to work together to provide people with personalised care and be part of the continuous improvement of the service.
The registered manager investigated and responded to people’s complaints, according to the provider’s complaints procedure.
We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
At the time of our inspection, there were 12 people who lived at the home. We spoke with one person who used the service and two visitors.
We found that care plans were individualised and contained details about people's daily routines, their health care needs and the support they required from staff. Risk assessments were in place to identify and minimise risks as far as possible for people who used the service.
We found that the home had arrangements in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and people appeared comfortable and relaxed when interacting with the staff.
We found that the home had appropriate arrangements in place to manage people's medicines and staff had received training to administer medicines safely.
We found that there were sufficient staff with the appropriate skills to support people's needs safely. One member of staff told us 'the manager is very approachable and listens; we are a good team'. A visitor told us 'staff are supportive; they are really good'.
We found that the home kept accurate records and stored them safely and appropriately, to ensure people's details and information was protected.
The service was clean and tidy and there were no unpleasant odours. People who used the service had been supported to personalise their rooms.
The service showed commitment and compassion to the people they cared for, this was evidenced by the time and flexible approach they had to meet people's individual needs. During the inspection we saw people in the home were comfortable in their environment and staff supported people to access all areas of the service freely to promote independence skills and social activity.
Each person who needed support to make their needs known had a communication assessment. This contained descriptions of how people communicated when they were frightened, sad, happy, and unwell. There were also explanations about the meanings of facial expressions, some noises and gestures. People who were able to speak were encouraged to do so.
The people we saw indicated that they were happy at the home. They were relaxed. They were participating in activities which they indicated that they enjoyed.
We saw that people were relaxed in the company of staff. They were happy to approach staff to express what they wanted and we saw staff respond in a caring and positive way.
The staff we spoke to had knowledge and understanding of people's needs and knew people's routines and how they liked to be supported.
Staff told us they would like to be able to spend more one to one time with people to enhance their lives more.
People who use the service indicated that they were happy at the home. On the whole they were relaxed. They were participating in a range of activities which they indicated that they enjoyed. When one person expressed that they were distressed and upset the staff dealt with the situation in away that best suited the person.
We saw that people were relaxed in the company of staff. They were happy to approach staff to express what they wanted and we saw staff respond in a caring and positive way.
The staff we spoke to had knowledge and understanding of people's needs and knew people's routines and how they liked to be supported.
Staff told us they sometimes felt there were not always enough of them on duty to care for the people in a timely manner.