CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Grosvenor House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and risks were assessed and managed. Medicines were administered safely, staff were safely recruited, and infection control was effective, although some people reported waits for support at busy times.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff knew people's needs, received training and support, and worked with health professionals. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and attentive. Inspectors saw staff ask for consent, offer choices and protect people's privacy and dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People had activities, support to keep in touch with relatives and personalised end-of-life care, but some people were not aware they could have more choice over their care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff were described as approachable and supportive. The provider had quality checks, feedback systems and processes for learning from incidents and complaints.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some waits at busy times and building improvements still underway.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 March 2023. An inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and health and safety paperwork.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and dignity, and supported by staff who knew their needs well.
There were some less positive points. Some people had to wait for support at busy times, especially at weekends. The building was described as old and tired, although renovation work had started. Some people were not aware they could have more choice about their care.
Consistent staff team
People and relatives said staff were consistent and knew people's needs well. Inspectors also found staff were safely recruited and supported with training and supervision.
“One health professional commented, "One of their greatest assets is that they have good retention of nurses. This results in the staff having good knowledge of the residents and their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They asked for consent, offered choices and protected people's privacy.
“Staff were attentive and kind in the way they spoke with and supported people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's wishes and gave staff guidance on how to support them. People were involved in decisions and could take part in activities suited to their interests.
“Care plans contained person-centred information to guide staff on how best to support each person.” from the report
Good management
The manager was described as approachable and fair. Quality checks, staff meetings and feedback systems were used to monitor and improve the service.
“The provider had robust quality assurance systems used to monitor the quality of the service and drive improvements.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could join a range of activities, with one-to-one alternatives for those who did not join groups. Staff also helped people maintain contact with those close to them.
“People had the opportunity to take part in a wide range of regular and meaningful activities.” from the report
Waiting at busy times
needs fixingSome people said they had to wait for support, particularly at weekends. Inspectors still judged staffing levels sufficient to meet people's needs safely.
“although some people said they had to wait for support at busy times, particularly on weekends.” from the report
Building improvements
minorRelatives described the building as old and tired. Renovation work had started and an improvement plan was in place.
“Relatives commented the building was old and tired, but also acknowledged they had been informed of plans to update the décor.” from the report
Choice about care
needs fixingSome people were not aware that they could have more choice about how their care was provided. The report gives examples involving showering and use of a commode.
“Some people we spoke to were not aware they could have more choice over how their care was provided.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure people receive prompt support at busy times, particularly at weekends?
- 02What renovation work has been completed since the inspection, and what work remains?
- 03How do you explain to each resident the choices they have about their care, including bathing and toileting?
- 04How are care plans checked to make sure they reflect each person's current wishes and preferences?
- 05How do you use feedback, complaints and incidents to make improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions, including the premises, care provided and infection control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Grosvenor House Care Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 December 2021.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.