CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Greenlane House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by safeguarding, risk assessment, staffing and medicine systems. Some as-required medicine instructions needed more detail, and a small number of staff did not replace face masks after eating on the first inspection day; these issues were addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care was planned around their abilities and preferences. Staff had training and support, and people received help with food, drink, healthcare, oral care and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as friendly, helpful and kind. Staff respected people's choices, routines, privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and staff knew people's wishes and preferred support. The home offered activities, trips and help to maintain relationships, and had a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open and approachable management team and systems to monitor quality and safety. Inspectors found that actions identified in audits were not always checked through to completion and made a recommendation about this.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Greenlane House was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some medicine-record and infection-control issues addressed during inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 6 and 25 April 2022. Inspectors spoke with five people, eight relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas. Inspectors found enough trained staff, personalised care, kind relationships, good activities and support with food, healthcare and end-of-life care. The home was clean and had arrangements to prevent and manage COVID-19 infections.
There were some issues. Instructions for some as-required medicines needed more detail, and a small number of staff did not replace face masks after eating on the first inspection day. Both issues were addressed straight away. The provider was also told to keep better track of improvement actions until they are completed.
Kind relationships
People and relatives described a friendly, warm atmosphere. Inspectors saw staff engaging with people and providing compassionate support.
“People and relatives praised the friendly atmosphere in the home and described staff as helpful and kind.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and communication styles. Staff were familiar with how each person wanted to be supported.
“People received individualised support that matched their personal preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities, go out and stay connected with relatives and the wider community.
“People had good support to keep in touch with relatives and the wider community.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People spoke positively about the food and were offered choices. Staff worked with healthcare professionals and monitored nutrition and oral health.
“People were complimentary about the quality of food.” from the report
Improvement actions not always followed through
needs fixingAudits had identified medicine-record problems twice, but the same issue was still found at inspection. The provider was recommended to keep actions under review until they are completed.
“During audits of the home two months prior to the inspection, the management team had twice noted some medicine records lacked detail and instruction for staff.” from the report
As-required medicine instructions
minorSome instructions for as-required medicines did not contain enough detail for consistent support. The provider addressed this immediately.
“Protocols for the use of 'as required' medicines were in place but needed more detail to ensure consistent support.” from the report
Face-mask practice
minorOn the first inspection day, a small number of staff did not replace face masks after eating. Inspectors saw improved practice at the next visit after the provider acted.
“On the first day of the inspection a small number of staff were not replacing facemasks after eating.” from the report
Call-bell response times
minorRelatives did not all agree about how long it took for call bells to be answered. Families may want to ask the home how response times are monitored.
“Relatives had mixed views about the time it took to answer call bells.” from the report
- 01How do you check that instructions for as-required medicines are detailed and kept up to date?
- 02How do you make sure actions identified in audits are completed and checked again?
- 03How quickly are call bells usually answered, and how do you monitor this?
- 04What arrangements are in place while the registered manager is on planned leave?
- 05What refurbishment work is still planned, including the replacement of the hot-water safety valves?
This was the first inspection since the service registered in 2020 and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 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.
Every inspection of Greenlane House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 June 2020.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Cumberland
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.