Grove Park

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

The overall rating for this key question was requires improvement. People did not always receive care and treatment which met their needs or reflected their preferences. There was a continued breach of Regulation regarding person centred care. The manager and staff were improving the quality of care plans to reflect peoples preferences. People and their relatives told us staff were now listening to them and acting on their wishes.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were treated with kindness. People and their relatives told us staff were kind, one person told us, “If you ask them to do something, they will absolutely do it for you”. Staff spoke about people warmly and demonstrated kindness and compassion. Staff interacted with people in a warm, respectful manner and people’s dignity was maintained. A professional told us, “The staff are caring and the patients seem happy at Grove Park”.

People did not always receive care and treatment which met their needs or reflected their preferences. Some people could not access suitable bathing facilities as these had not been fully adapted to meet their specific needs, this potentially impacted their opportunity to maximise their independence. Care plans lacked detail and had not always considered peoples strengths or abilities. Language used was in general about compliance and non- compliance. Person centred language is about always respecting the dignity, worth, unique qualities and strengths of every individual this was not always apparent in care plans. Whilst care plans did not always include enough information, most staff knew people well and supported them with their individual choices. We observed people being supported by staff with their choices of activities and clothing.

Whilst promoting people’s independence was not always considered, the provider had taken action regarding previous concerns around staff understanding of people’s rights and choices identified at the last assessment. People and their relatives told us staff were now listening to them and acting on their wishes. For example, the provider had recently begun regular meetings with people and their families. Following feedback from this the provider reconsidered their approach to catering arrangements. We observed people being in control of where they were in the service and moving independently with appropriate mobility aids.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.