The Grove Care Centre

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.

The provider had effective systems and processes to make sure people were protected from abuse and neglect. A relative told us, “[My family member] is very safe there, the staff are brilliant.” Another relative told us, “I don’t worry about [my family member] not being safe because I know I can trust the staff to look after them well and make sure they are comfortable.”

There was a clear understanding of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and this was only used in people’s best interests. Staff explained to us when a DoLS may need to be considered to keep people safe. A staff member told us regardless of capacity, they always gave people choice and supported people to make their own decisions when possible.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks were assessed and people and staff understood them. A relative told us, “They are very aware that people are at risk of falling and seem to know who they need to support.”

People and their relatives were supported to understand and discuss any risks. A relative told us, “We have meetings with the whole team and discuss changes which are necessary to make sure everything is safe.” Staff told us how they talked with people to understand what was going well or what could be changed. For example, they would talk to people about the equipment they used to see what else could be tried to improve people’s safety and quality of life.

Care plans and risk assessments for when people showed distress had limited guidance for staff to ensure they were consistently supporting them in the least restrictive way. However, staff were knowledgeable about how to positively support people when they showed distress. A staff member told us, “It’s a question of what is wrong. I can give comfort or reassurance or find out what they need so I can change it and create a better environment. Sometimes people are lonely, especially when other people have visitors, so we put some music on, sing together, or just have a conversation to make them feel more reassured.” A relative told us, “They have been exceptional in managing [my family member’s] moods and emotions. These can fluctuate quite a lot, and they seem to know how to calm them down and distract them.”

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

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks were assessed and people and staff understood them. A relative told us, “They are very aware that people are at risk of falling and seem to know who they need to support.”

People and their relatives were supported to understand and discuss any risks. A relative told us, “We have meetings with the whole team and discuss changes which are necessary to make sure everything is safe.” Staff told us how they talked with people to understand what was going well or what could be changed. For example, they would talk to people about the equipment they used to see what else could be tried to improve people’s safety and quality of life.

Care plans and risk assessments for when people showed distress had limited guidance for staff to ensure they were consistently supporting them in the least restrictive way. However, staff were knowledgeable about how to positively support people when they showed distress. A staff member told us, “It’s a question of what is wrong. I can give comfort or reassurance or find out what they need so I can change it and create a better environment. Sometimes people are lonely, especially when other people have visitors, so we put some music on, sing together, or just have a conversation to make them feel more reassured.” A relative told us, “They have been exceptional in managing [my family member’s] moods and emotions. These can fluctuate quite a lot, and they seem to know how to calm them down and distract them.”

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.