Grimston Court

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

The service engaged with people and their families to seek feedback and involve them in decisions about the home such as food and activities. Staff told us they understood their role in ensuring people’s diverse needs were identified and respected. People able to engage told us their needs and preferences were met, however, it wasn’t always clear how the needs of those less able to engage were met. More work was needed to ensure people were provided the safeguards afforded to them by when they lacked capacity.

This service scored 71 (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 Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People and their families told us they were happy with the care and support they received and would be happy to raise concerns if they had any. People had access to health care professionals such as GPs, district nurses and dieticians and the home supported access by making referrals as needed. People were provided the opportunity to feedback on the meal provision in place and types of activities they would like in the home. However, it was not clear that residents less able received the same experience as their more able peers.

Staff advocated for residents raising issues with leaders on their behalf. Staff knew how to raise concerns and told us they were confident these would be acted upon. Staff told us they had not observed any forms of discrimination towards residents and would report this if they had any concerns of this nature. Leaders told us that people’s religious needs were met and that they held religious services within the home.

Care plans did not always reflect how people’s religious needs should be met or how those less able to communicate were engaged and stimulated. Records on daily activities were not clear. We saw how staff provided feedback on improvements needed but these were not always acted on. Duty of candour was not always met when things went wrong, and more work was needed to evidence how outcomes from complaints were met. The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place and staff were aware of this and how to raise concerns.

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