CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Greenacres Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, recruitment, risk assessments, infection control, fire safety and medicines systems were satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and met by trained staff. Nutrition, hydration, healthcare support and consent arrangements were managed appropriately.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors saw warm, friendly and respectful interactions, with support for choice, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised, informative and regularly reviewed. People had access to group and individual activities, religious support and help to communicate their needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a kind and caring culture, stable management and systems for checking quality and safety. People, relatives, staff and health professionals spoke positively about the leadership.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some areas of the building and dementia support needing improvement.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 5 June 2019. The inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable care plans, positive relationships and a good range of activities. The home was clean, well maintained and welcoming.
The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good. Inspectors noted that some bathrooms were outdated and that dementia-friendly adaptations could be developed further. No regulations were breached and no enforcement action was reported.
Safe care and medicines
The home had enough staff and suitable recruitment checks. Medicines were administered, stored and recorded safely.
“Medicines were safely administered, stored and recorded at the home by staff who had the required knowledge and skills.” from the report
Kind staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed warm, friendly and caring interactions.
“We observed many warm, friendly and caring interactions between staff and the people living at the home throughout our inspection.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's health, communication, spiritual and cultural needs. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviews.
“The care plans we looked at were informative, regularly reviewed and reflected the needs of the people supported by the service.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered varied group and individual activities. Staff also supported religious preferences and helped people maintain relationships and interests.
“There was a good range of activities on offer to people living at the home, both on a group and individual basis.” from the report
Good leadership
The home had a stable management team, regular audits and ways to gather feedback from people and staff.
“There was a kind and caring culture amongst staff at the home.” from the report
Some bathrooms needed updating
minorInspectors found the environment was safe and well maintained overall, but some bathrooms were functional and outdated. They said these could be improved for people.
“The environment was well-maintained and safe but some parts of the home needed updating and decorating.” from the report
Dementia-friendly design could improve
minorThe home had some adaptations to help people living with dementia find their way around and understand information. Inspectors said this work could be developed further.
“However, we discussed with the registered managed that this could be developed and improved with some research and creativity.” from the report
- 01Which bathrooms have been updated since the inspection, and what further decorating or improvements are planned?
- 02What dementia-friendly changes have been made since the inspection to help people find their way around and understand information?
- 03How will you make sure medicines continue to be administered and recorded safely?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and making decisions about care?
- 05What activities are available for someone who prefers individual hobbies rather than group activities?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous Effective rating was Requires Improvement and had improved to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 June 2019 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.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the effective rating Requires Improvement because meals and mental-capacity checks needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 November 2016. Inspectors spoke with eight people living at the home, four visitors and eight staff. They observed care, checked medicines, records, staffing, training, recruitment and the building.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, clean premises, kind staff and care plans that reflected people's needs.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. There was no clear ongoing process to check whether people's mental capacity changed and whether they might need a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard. Inspectors also found the lunchtime service poorly organised, with menus lacking variety and healthy choices.
The previous inspection in October 2013 found the service compliant in all areas looked at. This report says the home had a registered manager, regular audits and good record keeping, but improvements were needed in the areas rated Requires Improvement.
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff throughout the day to respond to requests and spend time with people. The home had low staff turnover and no vacancies at the inspection.
“Throughout the day we observed there were sufficient staff available to respond quickly to requests for support and to spend time interacting with people on a social basis as well as meeting their care needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored at the correct temperature and records checked by inspectors were clear, with no missed signatures in the sample reviewed.
“We looked at a sample of medication administration record (MAR) sheets and saw these were very clear, tidy and had no missed signatures.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw cheerful, patient and respectful interactions.
“These were all pleasant and cheerful, patient and kind, and involved humour where appropriate.” from the report
Clear care planning
Care plans reflected people's support needs and were reviewed every month. Staff followed the guidance inspectors checked.
“The assessments and plans had been reviewed monthly to check whether the person's needs had changed.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager and senior staff carried out regular checks, including audits of care plans, medicines and the environment.
“We noted a very good standard of record keeping across all areas which meant that important documents were readily accessible and had been kept up to date.” from the report
Meals were poorly organised
needs fixingThe lunchtime service was noisy and chaotic. Menus did not offer enough variety or clearly show a range of fruit and vegetables.
“We found the lunchtime experience to be noisy and chaotic and it did not appear to be a social occasion.” from the report
Mental-capacity reviews
needs fixingThe home assessed people's capacity before they moved in, but inspectors did not see a clear system for reviewing this over time and identifying changing DoLS needs.
“We did not see a system in place to keep this under review in order to identify any changes in people's mental capacity.” from the report
Complaint information
minorThe complaints procedure was displayed, but it did not explain how to contact the service provider.
“We noticed that this did not give people any information about how to contact the service provider.” from the report
- 01What system do you now use to review people's mental capacity after they move in?
- 02How do you identify when a person may need a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard?
- 03What changes have you made to improve the organisation and atmosphere of lunchtime?
- 04How have you increased the variety and nutritional value of the menus?
- 05How can families contact the provider directly if they need to make a complaint?
This was an unannounced inspection looking at the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 December 2016 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 Greenacres Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 October 2011.
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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Liverpool
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. 83 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“All in all Kama b cared for the owner really well, every aspect of her care was of the highest standard.”
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.