CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Greenfields Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Requires Improvement overall; the focused inspection found good safe, caring and well-led arrangements, with some premises and care-plan work still needed.
Inspectors made an unannounced focused inspection on 22 November 2022. They spoke with 14 people, two relatives, eight staff and two health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff training and quality audits.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, good safeguarding, kind care and respect for people's choices, privacy and independence. They also found stronger management checks and action plans than at the previous inspection.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement because this inspection only covered Safe, Caring and Well-led. The ratings for Effective and Responsive were not reassessed and carried over from the previous inspection.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs, including when people needed reassurance or wanted to take part in activities.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
People were supported with warmth and respect. Staff protected privacy and encouraged people to make their own choices and do as much as possible for themselves.
“People received kind and compassionate care.” from the report
People's choices
Staff used people's preferred ways of communicating and involved people, relatives and professionals when developing care plans.
“People were supported to express their views about their care and daily lives and make their own decisions as far as possible.” from the report
Improved management oversight
Audits were used to identify improvements, with action plans showing what needed to be done and who was responsible.
“There was an action plan arising from checks and audits to show what action was required to improve the quality of care and who was going to do it.” from the report
Damaged surfaces
needs fixingA small number of areas had damaged surfaces that could prevent effective cleaning. Refurbishment was planned, but the work was not yet complete at the inspection.
“A small number of areas had damaged surfaces, which would prevent effective cleaning.” from the report
Care-plan reviews
needs fixingThe home had identified areas for improvement in people's risk assessments and care plans. These were still being reviewed during the inspection.
“The provider was in the process of reviewing everyone's risk assessments and associated care plans, as they had identified areas for improvement.” from the report
- 01Which areas had damaged surfaces, and when will the planned refurbishment be completed?
- 02What specific improvements were identified in risk assessments and care plans?
- 03What were the previous ratings for Effective and Responsive, which were not reassessed during this inspection?
- 04How will you check that care plans remain accurate when people's needs change?
- 05What action has been taken in response to concerns about the quality of care that prompted part of this inspection?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Caring and Well-led only; Effective and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 December 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; infection controls were mostly in place, but some masks were worn incorrectly and maintenance was still needed.
Inspectors made an unannounced, targeted visit on 23 February 2021 after receiving concerns about infection prevention and control. They looked at how the home managed infection risks, including visitors, protective equipment, testing, isolation and the building.
They found strong arrangements for visits, testing, isolation and managing a possible outbreak. People were supported to keep in touch with relatives by phone and video calls.
The inspectors were only somewhat assured that protective equipment was always used safely, because some staff wore face masks incorrectly in the office building. They also found damaged kitchen units and walls that still needed replacing or other maintenance.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of the home’s overall quality, and no ratings were given for the other four areas.
Testing and outbreak planning
People and staff had regular COVID-19 testing. The home had plans for preventing and managing an infection outbreak.
“People and staff had access to regular COVID-19 testing.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People were supported to keep in touch with relatives through phone and video calls.
“People were encouraged and supported to maintain contact with their relatives via phone and video calls.” from the report
Isolation arrangements
People who tested positive, and people discharged from hospital, were isolated to reduce the risk of spreading infection.
“People who were discharged from hospital were also isolated to ensure there was less risk of cross contamination.” from the report
Masks not always worn correctly
needs fixingInspectors saw some staff wearing face masks incorrectly in the office building. This meant they were only somewhat assured that protective equipment was being used safely.
“We observed some staff wearing their face masks incorrectly in the office building.” from the report
Building maintenance
needs fixingKitchen units and walls in one building were damaged and needed replacing. Inspectors said further maintenance was needed so areas could be cleaned effectively.
“Kitchen units and walls in one of the buildings were damage and in need of replacing.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken since the inspection to make sure all staff wear face masks correctly?
- 02Have the damaged kitchen units and walls been repaired or replaced, and can they now be cleaned effectively?
- 03How often are people and staff tested for COVID-19?
- 04How would you manage an infection outbreak, including isolation and contact with relatives?
- 05What infection control checks are carried out during visits and when people are admitted from hospital?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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 Greenfields Close
8 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.
- December 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.