CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Greenlands Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about safe admissions, the use of PPE, access to testing, and the home's layout and hygiene practices. The inspection did not award a rating.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, August 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control practices during a focused COVID-19 review.
Inspectors visited the home on 11 August 2020. The visit was announced and focused only on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that people were admitted safely, personal protective equipment was used safely, and testing was available for people and staff. They were also assured about the home's layout and hygiene practices.
The home supported contact with loved ones through video calls, telephone calls and window visits. The report says the home was signposted to resources to develop its approach.
No rating was given. This was a targeted thematic review, so it was not a full inspection of the home's overall quality.
COVID-19 testing
The home carried out regular COVID-19 testing in line with the guidance in place at the time.
“The service completed regular COVID-19 testing in line with current guidance.” from the report
Use of PPE
Inspectors were assured that personal protective equipment was being used effectively and safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safe admissions
Inspectors were assured that people were admitted safely to the home.
“We were assured that the provider was admitting people safely to the service.” from the report
Contact with loved ones
The home helped people keep in touch through video calls, telephone calls and visits at the window.
“The service was supporting people to maintain regular contact with loved ones through video calls, telephone calls and visits at the window.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection-control arrangements are currently in place, and how have they changed since the inspection on 11 August 2020?
- 02How often are people living here and staff tested now?
- 03How is PPE provided, used and checked today?
- 04How are new people admitted safely to the home?
- 05How can residents currently keep in regular contact with their loved ones?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; no overall rating was given and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with minor shortfalls in recruitment, medicines and the environment.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 February 2020. Two inspectors and an expert by experience spoke with people living at the home, staff, visiting professionals, relatives and a friend. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files, training records and management documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors found enough staff on duty, respectful care, clean surroundings, suitable food, personalised care plans and a range of activities.
Inspectors found some minor problems with recruitment checks and medicines records. These were addressed during or shortly after the inspection. The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, including in caring, responsiveness and well-led leadership.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people kindly and supporting their dignity, privacy and independence.
“They[staff] look after you very well here. They are very attentive,” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs, and people said help was provided promptly.
“They are very, very prompt [to provide assistance].” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans and one-page profiles gave staff clear information about people's needs, preferences and communication.
“The one-page profiles, care plans and risk assessments were well-written and provided staff with clear guidance about people's personalised needs and how these were to be best met.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found regular monitoring, staff supervision and meetings with people, relatives and staff.
“The provider had a range of regular audits in place which ensured the quality of service was effectively assessed and monitored.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingSome interview discussions were not recorded, employment gaps were not always explored and one reference was missing. A potential risk from a police check had not initially been assessed, although this was later addressed.
“We recommend the provider reviews the recruitment practices adopted by the home.” from the report
Medicines records
minorInspectors found minor shortfalls in medicines management. The management team said these would be fixed without delay, and evidence showed they were addressed immediately.
“However, some minor shortfalls were identified, which were discussed with the management team at the time of our inspection, who assured us these would be addressed without delay.” from the report
Crowded and sometimes unattended lounge
needs fixingBoth lounges were full, making it difficult to sit and talk. On one occasion, a person had to look for staff when help was needed.
“The lounge area was occasionally not manned by staff and we saw one mobile person go to find staff when help was needed.” from the report
- 01How are interview discussions, references and gaps in employment now recorded for new staff?
- 02What checks are now in place to make sure medicines records remain complete and accurate?
- 03What work has been completed to improve the lounges and reduce crowding?
- 04How will staff make sure the lounge is supervised when people may need help?
- 05How are people's cultural, religious and communication needs matched with staff and activities?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the care provided and the premises both considered. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 April 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.
Every inspection of Greenlands Residential Home
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 2012.
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 Bolton
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.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“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.”
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.