CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Greatwood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, equipment, infection control and health and safety checks were managed appropriately, although two recruitment files lacked a reference from a previous health and social care employer.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and skills needed to support people. People were supported with food, fluids and healthcare, but dementia-friendly signage around the home was limited.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and supported their independence. Records did not consistently show that people and their families were involved in care plan reviews.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and supported personalised care, activities, communication and relationships. Some care plans lacked enough specific detail to reflect staff knowledge and individual needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture, regular meetings and systems for monitoring quality. Inspectors found repetitive paperwork that could be misleading, and the amount was reduced during the inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Greatwood House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some records and recruitment checks needing improvement.
Inspectors visited on 16 and 17 October 2023. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They reviewed five care plans, medicines records and other records. They spoke with people living at the home, visitors, staff and a health professional, and observed care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People generally felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Medicines, infection control, food and access to healthcare were managed well. Activities and complaints handling were also viewed positively.
Inspectors found some areas to improve. Two staff files did not include a reference from the previous health and social care employer. Care plans did not always contain enough detail or show that people and families had been involved in reviews. Dementia-friendly signs were limited, and some paperwork was repetitive and misleading.
Safeguarding and safety
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns.
“People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Medicines
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. People had no concerns about their medicines.
“Staff had received appropriate training and competency assessments around the administration of medication.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw caring interactions. Staff knew people and supported their choices, dignity and independence.
“Staff treated people with kindness and respect. We observed caring interactions between staff and people living at the home.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in activities inside and outside the home, including visits, shopping and local luncheon clubs.
“Staff supported people with a range of activities within and outside the home.” from the report
Complaints handling
People knew how to complain and inspectors found that concerns were listened to and dealt with appropriately.
“People's concerns and complaints were listened to, responded to and used to improve the quality of care.” from the report
Recruitment references
needs fixingTwo staff records did not show that the previous health and social care employer had been contacted for a reference. Inspectors made a recommendation that recruitment practices should meet the required standard.
“We found two examples where the previous health and social care provider had not been contacted for a reference.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not contain enough personalised detail, even though staff could explain how they supported people. Inspectors recommended reviewing the plans.
“Care plans did not always contain sufficient detail and were not consistently reflective of the level of staff knowledge.” from the report
Involvement in reviews
needs fixingRecords did not consistently show that people and their families had been involved in care plan reviews.
“Care plans did not consistently demonstrate that people and their families were involved in care plan reviews.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
minorThe staffing numbers met the home's dependency tool at the inspection, but some people and staff gave mixed feedback about whether staffing levels were enough.
“I have to wait sometimes… they do their best but there's not enough of them.” from the report
Repetitive paperwork
minorStaff spent a lot of time completing duplicate records. Some records could wrongly suggest that personal care had not been provided, although it had been recorded elsewhere.
“The records were misleading and looked like support with personal care had not been given but it had been recorded on another form.” from the report
- 01Have the missing references from previous health and social care employers now been obtained and checked?
- 02How are residents and families involved in care plan reviews, and how often are plans updated?
- 03What specific changes have been made to care plans for people who display distressed behaviour or have other complex needs?
- 04What improvements have been made to dementia-friendly signage around the home?
- 05How has the amount of repetitive paperwork been reduced, and how do you make sure records clearly show the care provided?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, including the premises and care provided; the previous rating was Good in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Greatwood House
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 August 2021.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Tameside
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 90 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.