CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Greenacres Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, August 2020
Greenacres Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the visit.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 13 August 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found enough personal protective equipment, safe visiting and admission procedures, staff and resident testing, and infection control training. They also found the home clean and well maintained.
The home was marked “Inspected but not rated”. This visit did not give an overall rating or a rated score for safety.
Protective equipment
The home had enough PPE, and staff were observed wearing it in line with national guidance.
“The provider ensured there was a sufficient stock of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and we observed staff wearing this in line with national guidance.” from the report
Testing arrangements
There was a testing programme for staff and people living in the home, intended to identify coronavirus infections promptly.
“There was a testing programme in place for staff and people living in the service.” from the report
Safer visiting
Visitors had their temperature taken, were given PPE and were instructed about social distancing.
“The registered manager had introduced a visiting procedure where all visitors were requires to have their temperature taken, have sufficient Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and were instructed regarding social distancing.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and well maintained.
“The service was clean and well maintained.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently checked and supported to follow infection control procedures?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested, and what happens when someone has a positive result?
- 03How do you make sure there is enough PPE available for staff and visitors?
- 04What infection prevention and control training have staff completed recently?
- 05What procedures are followed when someone is admitted to the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures under the Safe question; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 August 2020 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, May 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the Safe rating Requires Improvement because some medicine and risk records were not reliable.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 27 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, care staff and managers. They reviewed care records, staffing, training, medicines and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. People were treated kindly, received personalised care, had access to activities and healthcare, and relatives said concerns were dealt with.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Medicines were administered safely, but some medicine records were inaccurate or not properly signed. Some individual risks had not been assessed, and the home needed to improve how it recorded certain decisions and private information.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff respond sensitively and support people's privacy, dignity and choices.
“People were treated with kindness and were given emotional support when needed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, life histories and changing needs. Staff used this information to provide individual care.
“We found that people received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Staffing and training
The home had enough staff on duty and staff received induction, refresher training and one-to-one support.
“The provider had ensured there was enough staff on duty to provide safe care to people.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had group and one-to-one activities, visits from entertainers and opportunities to maintain family relationships.
“A member of staff was employed to lead on coordinating activities for six days a week.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Refurbishment and stronger checks were reported.
“At the present inspection the service was 'Good'.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingThree medicine records did not always show people's allergies. Three records had written changes that were not signed and dated.
“However we observed three MARs did not always reflect people's allergies.” from the report
Medicine administration instructions
seriousWhen medicines were given in food, the correct arrangements were not in place to check that this would not affect how the medicines worked. The manager acted during the inspection.
“Where people received their medicines in food to assist them to be able to take their medicines we observed the appropriate arrangements had not been put in place” from the report
Risk assessments
needs fixingSome individual risks had not been assessed. One example involved a person choosing to have medicines left with them.
“However we observed occasions when individual risks had not been assessed.” from the report
Confidential information
needs fixingSome monitoring charts were left in communal areas where visitors or members of the public could see them.
“We found that suitable arrangements had not always been maintained to ensure that private information was kept confidential.” from the report
Decision records
needs fixingSome best-interest decisions were not specific enough. Two DNACPR records did not accurately reflect people's capacity.
“However these were not decision specific as required by national guidance.” from the report
Care planning involvement
minorAlthough records showed people had been consulted, only one person or relative confirmed they had been involved in creating their care plan.
“However only one of the people or relatives we spoke with confirmed they had been involved in formulating their care plan.” from the report
- 01How are medicine allergies now checked and recorded on medicine administration records?
- 02How do you make sure changes to medicine records are signed and dated?
- 03How are risks assessed when a person wants to keep or manage their own medicines?
- 04How do you protect monitoring charts and other private information from being seen by visitors?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in creating and reviewing care plans?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 May 2018 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
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- September 2015Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inadequate
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.