CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Greenways
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, suitable recruitment checks, safely managed medicines and clean premises. Risks and incidents were assessed and reviewed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training, supervision and access to care guidance. People received suitable food and help with healthcare, and the home followed the Mental Capacity Act when people could not consent.
- Caring?
- Good
- People received care from kind and respectful staff. Staff supported choice, privacy, independence and involvement in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care was personalised and activities were provided, but one call for help was answered after 16 minutes. One complaint was not fully recorded until inspectors identified the issue.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff were involved in decisions. Inspectors found an approachable management team and regular checks on safety and quality.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but the home Requires Improvement in responding to people.
Inspectors visited without warning on 10 and 14 May 2018. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, suitable training, clean premises, good food, appropriate health support and kind staff. People were involved in decisions and received personalised care.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. One call for help took 16 minutes to receive a response, although a test call was answered in 52 seconds. One complaint had not been entered fully in the complaints log, but this was corrected during the inspection. The overall Good rating means the home met the required standard overall, but families should discuss how these issues are being monitored.
Improved staffing
Staffing levels had increased since the previous inspection. Inspectors found enough staff to safely look after people.
“At this inspection there were between seven and nine care staff on duty plus two senior staff.” from the report
Safe care
Risks were assessed and care plans gave staff guidance. Medicines, equipment and emergency arrangements were checked.
“Risks to people were assessed and guidance was in place to mitigate these.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed friendly, caring interactions. Staff promoted people's dignity, privacy, choice and independence.
“We observed staff spoke to people in a friendly and caring way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences, communication needs and the support they could provide for themselves. Activities reflected people's interests.
“The care plans were individualised, person centred and holistic.” from the report
Improved cleanliness
The cleanliness problem found at the previous inspection had been addressed. Inspectors found the home clean and without offensive odours.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made. The premises were found to be clean and there were no odours caused by urinary incontinence.” from the report
Delay answering a call for help
needs fixingOne person waited 16 minutes after using their bedroom call point. The home agreed to investigate this, although the test call during inspection was answered in 52 seconds.
“We looked at the call point log which showed staff had not responded until 16 minutes after one person requested help.” from the report
Complaint record was incomplete
minorOne complaint had been investigated but was missing from the home's complaints log. The record was added during the inspection.
“We identified one complaint was not fully recorded which was rectified during the inspection.” from the report
- 01How have you changed the way bedroom call-point response times are monitored since one person waited 16 minutes?
- 02What was the reason for the 16-minute delay, and what action was taken afterwards?
- 03How do you make sure complaints are entered in full and tracked through to their outcome?
- 04How do you ensure agency staff know people's dietary requirements, given the report noted there was no coded system for identifying special diets?
- 05How are staffing levels adjusted when there are vacancies or staff absences?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions, the premises and the care provided, with checks of records, staffing, medicines, complaints and quality audits. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 August 2018 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, December 2016
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but staffing, cleanliness and management systems breached regulations.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 3 and 7 November 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff rotas, training, complaints and audits.
People generally felt safe and said staff were kind and respectful. Care was effective overall, with staff training, support with food and drink, and links with health professionals. Care plans were personalised and activities were available, although some reviews were overdue and activities were not provided at weekends.
The home did not always have enough staff to meet people's needs. Inspectors also found unpleasant smells in some areas, gaps in some medicines records, unclear recording of choices about care staff gender and bedroom keys, and weak systems for checking and improving quality. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, with Good ratings for Effective and Responsive.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed staff treating people calmly, patiently and with compassion. Staff supported people who were distressed and promoted their privacy.
“Staff treated people with kindness and compassion as well as being patient with them.” from the report
Health and nutrition support
People's health needs were monitored and referrals were made when needed. Nutritional risks were assessed, and people had food and drink choices, including access to snacks.
“People's health care needs were monitored and each person had a support plan regarding their health care, which was reviewed each month.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's backgrounds, preferences, routines and the support they needed. People were consulted about their care.
“Each person's needs had been assessed and these were used to devise a personalised care plan which reflected people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Complaints were investigated
People and relatives knew how to raise concerns. Records showed that complaints were investigated and actions were taken.
“Records were maintained of these complaints along with details of how they were investigated and the outcome.” from the report
Not enough staff at busy times
seriousInspectors found that staffing levels did not always meet people's needs. This led to delays, people not always being supervised and one person being overlooked during a meal.
“Sufficient numbers of staff were not always deployed to ensure people were safely cared for and their needs met.” from the report
Unpleasant smells
seriousUrinary incontinence smells were noticed in some bedrooms, corridors and communal areas. The provider knew about this but had not done enough to resolve it.
“The provider had not taken sufficient action to ensure adequate cleaning took place to combat odours caused by incontinence.” from the report
Medicines records needed improvement
needs fixingSome people self-administering medicines did not have the required risk assessment. Instructions for some medicines taken when needed were also missing from care records.
“We recommend action is taken to address these omissions in care plans regarding people receiving their medicines safely.” from the report
Choices were not clearly recorded
needs fixingThe home said people could choose the gender of staff providing personal care and could have a bedroom key, but records did not show that these choices had been offered or discussed.
“There were no records in people's care plans to show if people were ever asked this.” from the report
Quality checks did not lead to full improvement
seriousThe provider had not fully acted on problems identified at the previous inspection and did not send the requested action plan. Its systems for monitoring and improving the service were not effective enough.
“The provider did not have systems established and operated to ensure compliance regarding the assessment, monitoring and improvement of the service as well as submitting action plans when requested.” from the report
- 01What staffing levels are now planned for each unit, especially during mornings, meals and other busy periods?
- 02What work has been completed to remove the unpleasant smells caused by incontinence, and how is cleanliness now checked?
- 03How are medicines taken when needed, and medicines self-administered by residents, now recorded and reviewed?
- 04How are residents' preferences about the gender of staff providing personal care and having a bedroom key recorded?
- 05Have all overdue care plan reviews and staff supervisions been completed, and what did the follow-up quality assessment find?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, with ratings given for all five areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 2016 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 Greenways
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 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.