Grandsmere Place

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People told us they felt safe, and relatives also felt their family members were safe. There was an open culture where people and relatives felt able to raise concerns. Safeguarding procedures were available to staff and in easy read format for people living in the home. Staff were up to date with training and knew how to report any allegations of abuse. Records showed safeguarding incidents had been managed appropriately, referred to the local authority and notified to CQC.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and DoLS. An application had been made to renew one person's DoLS prior to the expiry date and this was being dealt with by the local authority.

People were supported and empowered to take risks in areas they wanted and to enhance their lives. For example, one person liked to go out on their own and travel on public transport to places of interest. Staff helped them organise their day and plan their journey ensuring their safety.



Staff knew people well and understood there were times when people may become distressed and took steps to understand why a person was distressed and what support they needed to express their emotions.

Risk assessments were in place for all aspects of care and support. Two people liked to spend time on their own in the house without staff being present. This had been a long-standing arrangement. Security measures were in place and people knew the fire procedures and had taken part in fire drills. However, it was not always clear what was in place in the event of a fall or medical emergency. The provider took prompt action during the inspection to mitigate these risks. Discussions were held with both people and their relatives. Mental capacity assessments were carried out and both people have been provided with a wearable device which triggers a 24 hour monitored system in the event of a fall or an emergency. The provider was also working with the local authority to review the specific risk assessments in place for both people to maximise their independence and ensure their safety.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People were supported by a team of staff who had worked with them for many years and knew them well. On call systems were in place to support staff when the manager was not present in the home. People received consistent support and had developed positive and trusting relationships with the staff team. We saw interactions between staff and people were warm and friendly. Staff had been trained and had the right skills to support the people living in the home. Staff were supported in their roles receiving regular supervision and annual appraisals. Safe recruitment processes were in place.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.