CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Greenfield Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable staffing, risk assessments, medicines systems, infection control and safety checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management was visible and approachable. Inspectors found effective audits, regular care reviews and good oversight of the service.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with a new manager's registration still being assessed.
This was a focused inspection of the home. One inspector visited on 16 and 19 December 2022. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and other professionals, and reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, audits and training records.
The home provides short-stay respite care, including personal care, for up to seven people at a time. Inspectors found that people were safe, supported by enough trained staff, and cared for in a clean and suitable environment. Medicines, infection control, risk assessments and safety checks were managed well.
Inspectors also found strong management and quality checks. The overall rating was Good. Safe and well-led were both rated Good. This inspection did not assess the other three questions, so their ratings were carried over from the last inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People received compassionate care, and staff respected their privacy, dignity, choices and individual needs.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Safe staffing
There were enough staff with the right skills, including one-to-one support for activities and visits.
“The service had enough appropriately skilled staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Good safety systems
Risk assessments, health and safety checks, medicines systems and infection control arrangements were found to be effective.
“People received safe care because staff learned from safety alerts and incidents.” from the report
Positive leadership
The manager and provider carried out regular audits and had good oversight of the home.
“The manager and the provider carried out frequent and robust quality assurance audits.” from the report
Manager registration pending
minorThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. A new manager had applied to register, and the application was still being assessed.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager's registration application now been completed?
- 02How does the home match staffing levels and skills to each person's needs during short stays?
- 03How are families involved in planning and reviewing a person's respite care?
- 04How does the home support people with different communication, sensory and physical needs?
- 05How are medicines prescribed for use when needed recorded and reviewed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other three question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 January 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.
What inspectors found, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised respite care, and said an earlier consent problem had been put right.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 12 and 26 June 2017. The inspector reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and safety records. They also spoke with people using the home, a relative and staff.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, personalised care plans and regular safety checks.
At the previous inspection, the home had breached rules about consent and the Mental Capacity Act. Inspectors found this had been corrected. The right authorisations and decision-making records were in place. People and a relative gave positive feedback, and there had been no complaints.
Consent improved
The earlier problem with consent had been corrected. Inspectors found appropriate authorisations and records for people who could not consent to their stay or some aspects of their care.
“We found improvements had been made in this area and the provider was now following the requirements of the MCA.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm and friendly interactions. Staff supported people's dignity, choices and independence.
“We saw staff members were kind, considerate and caring. Interactions between people and staff were warm and friendly.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, preferences, abilities and communication methods. They were reviewed to keep them up to date.
“This meant staff were clear about what people wanted from their support; what they were able to do for themselves and what they needed support with.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Only trained and assessed staff gave medicines. Inspectors found accurate records covering receipt, administration and disposal.
“We found medicines records were accurate. For example, records relating to the receipt, administration and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Activities and choice
People were supported to take part in activities they preferred, including outings, social events, bingo and watching favourite programmes.
“Staff supported people to participate in their preferred activities.” from the report
Previous safeguarding incidents
minorSix safeguarding concerns had been raised in the year before the inspection. The report says they were referred, fully investigated and followed by robust action, so this was not recorded as a current breach.
“There had been six safeguarding concerns raised in the 12 months prior to our inspection.” from the report
Previous medicines errors
minorThe incident log recorded two medicines errors in the previous 12 months. The manager investigated them and introduced further training, competency checks and increased observations.
“These were mostly in relation to minor injuries and two medicines errors.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative to make choices if they have limited communication?
- 02What medicines support would my relative need, and how would you prevent and respond to medicines errors?
- 03What safeguarding concerns or incidents have occurred since this inspection, and what was learned from them?
- 04How would you involve my relative and our family in creating and reviewing their personalised care plan?
- 05Which activities and trips could my relative take part in during a short stay?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas, with all five ratings given as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 July 2017 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 Lodge
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.
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
43 live-in carers within about an hour of Hartlepool
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 £970 to £1,120 a week. 40 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.