CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Greenfield Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were kept safe from abuse and avoidable harm, and risk assessments gave staff clear guidance. Inspectors said staffing was enough for safe care, but staffing levels affected interaction and stimulation.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support with food, health care and daily needs. Inspectors found training arrangements needed attention, including refresher training and staff understanding of mental capacity responsibilities.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were patient and respectful, understood people's communication styles and supported people to make choices. Relatives described staff as caring and understanding.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records reflected people's preferences and people accessed community activities. However, people were sometimes left without enough interaction or stimulation, and the provider was asked to improve in-house activities.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager was approachable and audits were completed. However, feedback was not clearly turned into improvements, and some problems with activities and end of life records had not been identified before the inspection.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Greenfield Care Home is rated Good overall, but inspectors found leadership and some activity and staffing arrangements need improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 July 2022. Two inspectors spoke with relatives and three staff, observed people's care, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received medicines safely, had personalised care, and were treated with dignity and respect.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that staffing did not always provide enough interaction and stimulation, staff training and refresher courses needed updating, and feedback was not clearly linked to improvements. The home also needed to improve some decoration and record-keeping.
Safe medicines support
Medicines were given at the right times, records were accurate and staff understood how to respond to a medicines error.
“People received their medicines safely and at the times they needed them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people's individual needs and communication styles. People were involved in decisions and supported with privacy and independence.
“Staff took the time to understand people's individual communication styles and develop a rapport with them.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records described people's routines, preferences and communication needs. People could personalise their rooms and were involved in decisions about their home.
“Care records were personalised in reflecting people's preferences.” from the report
Community access
People took part in community activities, used local shops and restaurants, attended a day service and went on outings.
“People had access to a wide range of activities in the community to meet their social needs.” from the report
Not enough interaction at times
needs fixingThree staff were on duty during the day, but inspectors saw people spending significant periods alone while staff focused on tasks. The manager said staffing and activity provision would be reviewed.
“During the inspection we observed people spending significant time alone in the main lounge without adequate interaction from staff.” from the report
Training needed updating
needs fixingInspectors were not initially assured that some training was thorough, and refresher training was needed. The provider later sent updated training information.
“Updated training and refresher courses were needed to help staff continuously apply best practice.” from the report
Building condition
minorThe home was being redecorated, but inspectors found chipped and flaking paint, marks and holes in walls.
“The service was in clear need of updating, as there were areas of the service that had chipped and flaking paint, marks on the walls and holes in the wall.” from the report
Leadership follow-through
needs fixingThe home collected feedback, but it was not clear how this would lead to improvements. Some issues had only been identified during the inspection.
“The provider sought the feedback of people, their relatives and staff but it was not clear how they planned to respond or make improvements as a result.” from the report
- 01How many staff are planned for each shift, and how will you make sure people receive enough one-to-one interaction and stimulation?
- 02Which refresher and person-specific training has now been completed, including training about mental capacity and people's health needs?
- 03What in-house activities are now available, and how do you check that each person is getting activities suited to their interests?
- 04What redecoration and building repairs have been completed since the inspection, and what work remains?
- 05How do you record people's end of life wishes, including when someone does not want to discuss them, and how do you use relatives' feedback to make improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection of this newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 August 2022 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, July 2021
Greenfield Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found safer care processes, infection controls and improvement work after concerns.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 15 June 2021. Inspectors followed up specific concerns about people's safety, dignity and respect. They reviewed care plans and risk assessments, observed care, spoke with staff and relatives, and checked records.
The inspection found that risks to people's health were assessed and managed. Staff knew how to report abuse and incidents. Inspectors also found that infection control procedures, including COVID-19 measures, were being followed.
A new provider had taken over in May 2021. Renovations, new procedures and changes to care planning were under way. The previous rating was Good, but this inspection did not give a new rating because it was targeted and did not cover the whole service.
Risk management
Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed and updated when needed. Staff understood how to identify and report abuse.
“Risks to people's health were assessed, managed and updated when needed. This ensured people received care in a safe manner.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found suitable COVID-19 precautions, including staff training, personal protective equipment, screening and cleaning procedures.
“We were assured staff were following safe infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures.” from the report
Family involvement
The new provider and manager had increased contact with relatives and sought their views about developing the service.
“The provider and registered manager had increased the involvement of people using the service, their family members and worked with other health and social professionals” from the report
Learning from incidents
Incidents and accidents were recorded and reviewed for patterns. Investigations and changes to care planning were being used to reduce the risk of problems happening again.
“The registered manager reviewed this information for trends to look for ways to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What progress has been made with the refurbishment programme, including the planned double glazing and redecorating?
- 02How are safeguarding concerns and allegations now recorded, investigated and reviewed?
- 03How are people and their relatives involved in decisions about care, activities and improvements?
- 04How do you check that care plans and risk assessments remain current for each person?
- 05What infection control and visiting arrangements are currently in place?
This was a targeted inspection of specific safety concerns and did not assess the whole service; the previous Good rating was not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 July 2021 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 Greenfield Care Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 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 Merton
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 £1,230 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
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.