CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Greenfields Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safeguarding procedures, regular safety checks, suitable staffing, safe recruitment and appropriate medicines systems. They were also assured about infection prevention and control during the pandemic.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. No areas of concern had been identified, so the previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. No areas of concern had been identified, so the previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report found detailed, person-centred care plans, regular family updates and support to maintain relationships. Complaints systems were in place and people knew how to raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular checks and audits, monitoring of care records and communication between the provider and manager. People's and families' views were sought.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, responsive and well-led care, although activities had changed during the pandemic.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 9 December 2020. One inspector visited the home. The inspection team also spoke with two people living there, four family members and five staff. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found effective infection control, safe medicines procedures, suitable staffing and recruitment checks. Care plans recorded people's needs and choices, and families were supported to stay in contact.
The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, published in October 2019. The report says the home had improved. Because this was a focused inspection, the Responsive and Well-led ratings used findings from earlier comprehensive inspections rather than a full new inspection of those areas.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures to prevent and manage infection during the pandemic, including safe use of protective equipment and testing.
“We were assured the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored and managed safely. Staff responsible for medicines had training and their ability had been checked.
“People received their medicines appropriately by trained and competent staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's individual needs and choices. Staff were observed listening and responding sensitively when someone became upset.
“People's care plans were detailed, and person centred. They clearly reflected people's individual needs and choices.” from the report
Family contact
Staff helped people keep in touch with relatives through calls, visits and sharing videos or photographs during the pandemic.
“Family members told us staff supported people to keep in touch.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used regular checks and audits to monitor medicines, the living environment and care records.
“Weekly and monthly checks and audits took place.” from the report
Activities changed
minorActivities were available, but the pandemic had reduced or changed what could be provided. Ask what activities are available now and how they match your relative's interests.
“Activities were made available within the service. However, changes had been made to this provision during the pandemic.” from the report
- 01What activities are available now, and how are they matched to my relative's interests and choices?
- 02How will I be involved in reviewing my relative's care plan and kept updated about their care needs?
- 03How are medicines checked, and how do you make sure staff remain competent to administer them safely?
- 04What infection prevention, testing and visiting arrangements are currently in place?
- 05How can I raise a complaint, and how will it be recorded and followed up?
This was a planned focused inspection based on the previous rating, with infection control inspected under Safe; Responsive and Well-led used previous inspection findings, and Effective and Caring were not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but some safety, record keeping and management systems still needed work.
This was an unannounced inspection following an earlier Inadequate rating. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. People said they felt safe, received medicines on time and were treated kindly. Staff knew people well, supported their health needs and provided a balanced diet.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Effective and Caring were rated Good. The home was no longer in Special Measures and was no longer in breach of regulations at this inspection.
Improved risk management
Risks such as nutrition, hydration, skin care and mobility were identified and reviewed. The home also learned from accidents and updated care plans when needed.
“Risks identified for people included nutrition, hydration, skin and mobility . This was an improvement from the previous inspection.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw that staff listened, communicated well and supported people's choices and independence.
“Staff knew people well and it was evident from their interactions with people that positive relationships had been formed.” from the report
Medicines and infection control
Medicines were stored and administered safely by trained staff. The home had infection control procedures and staff used protective equipment appropriately.
“Staff followed safe medicines policies and procedures and good practice guidance.” from the report
Progress since the last inspection
The home had addressed the previous regulatory breaches and improved training, consent processes, governance and risk management. It moved from Inadequate and Special Measures to an overall Requires Improvement rating.
“The provider demonstrated that improvements have been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions.” from the report
Equipment risk checks
needs fixingThree bed rails had not had risk assessments completed. The provider acted immediately, but inspectors recommended continued checking of all equipment used.
“We recommend that the provider continually reviews their procedures to ensure that any equipment in use is regularly assessed for safety.” from the report
Privacy in communal records
needs fixingPeople's full names and personal information were recorded in communal books where others could see them. Inspectors recommended that the recording process be reviewed.
“People's full names had been recorded on the same pages and other people's personal information which did not protect individual's personal information.” from the report
Limited detail in daily records
needs fixingRecords did not always clearly show the care and support given or offered. Some entries used brief phrases rather than person-centred detail.
“records contained terms that included "Appeared settled", "No concerns" and "No concerns at this time.” from the report
Complaint records
needs fixingPeople knew how to complain, but the home initially had no system to record complaint investigations and outcomes. The provider said a system had been introduced after the inspection.
“However, there was no system in place to record investigations and outcomes of any complaints received.” from the report
Registered manager
minorA new manager was in post but had not started the registration process with the CQC. Leadership was still rated Requires Improvement.
“A new manager was in post, however they had not begun the registration process to apply to become the registered manager of the service.” from the report
- 01What checks are now completed for bed rails and other equipment before and during use?
- 02How do you keep people's personal information private in communal records?
- 03How do daily records now show the detailed, person-centred care each resident received?
- 04How are complaints investigated, recorded and followed up?
- 05Has the manager started or completed the CQC registration process?
This was an unannounced planned inspection following the previous rating and covered all five key questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 October 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.
Every inspection of Greenfields Care Home
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of St. Helens
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. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.