Grosvenor House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 18 August 2025. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Grosvenor House is a 6-bedroom detached residential care home providing 24-hour support for people with a learning disability, physically disabled people, and people with multiple needs. At the time of the assessment, the provider was supporting 6 people.We assessed the provider against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.Date of Assessment, 11 March to 17 June 2025. This was a scheduled, comprehensive assessment following the last inspection on 30 June 2022. The assessment focused on reviewing improvements made since that time and evaluating current compliance with regulatory standards. The last rating for the provider was requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to person centred care, consent to care, good governance and safe care and treatment. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.At our last assessment Grosvenor House was rated Requires Improvement in all key questions. We identified breaches of 6 regulations, including 2 warning notices under safe care and treatment and good governance. Requirements were also issued in relation to consent, person-centred care, and premises and equipment.At that time, we found serious shortfalls in medicines safety, risk assessment, and the provider’s ability to learn from incidents. Quality assurance systems were ineffective, meaning risks were not consistently identified or addressed. Some care was not person-centred, and key safety equipment had not been delivered or documented in care plans. Capacity assessments were unclear, and consent processes were inconsistent.At this assessment, we found these issues had been addressed. The provider had implemented improved governance systems and more robust auditing. Medicines were managed safely, with accurate records and appropriate oversight. Risk assessments had been reviewed and updated following incidents, and capacity assessments were decision-specific and clearly documented. People’s care was more consistently person-centred, with support plans tailored to their preferences, routines, and communication styles.As a result, there were no ongoing breaches, and previous enforcement action had been met. Improvements were embedded and sustained through ongoing oversight and staff training.There was a positive, person-centred culture where people and families felt confident to raise concerns, knowing they would be heard. Managers responded effectively, adjusting care and clearly communicating outcomes. A person-led ethos was embedded in daily practice, supported by a compassionate, well-trained, and motivated staff team.People were kept safe through effective care planning and risk management. Staff understood individual needs, managed risks confidently, and learned from incidents. Medicines were handled safely and collaboratively. The environment was clean and welcoming, with personalised bedrooms and accessible shared spaces.Staffing levels were safe, and staff demonstrated skills in communication and person-centred care, particularly for autistic people and people with a learning disability. Information was shared in ways people could understand. Decisions were made in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, involving best interests meetings and input from families and professionals.Meals were varied and chosen by people receiving support. Staff were aware of people’s dietary needs and supported people in accordance with them. The kitchen was clean and food hygiene practices were followed.Strong partnerships with professionals ensured equitable access to healthcare. People were supported to pursue routines that mattered to them and were helped to understand their rights and end-of-life planning.