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.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and a suitable home, but risks, nutrition, records and management oversight were not always handled safely.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 25 and 29 April 2022, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care, medication, staffing and management records.
The home was clean, safe and well equipped. People had enough staff support, could take part in activities, and were treated with kindness and dignity. Staff understood safeguarding, medicines and people's communication needs.
Inspectors found important shortfalls. Risks linked to weight loss and poor nutrition were not always assessed or managed. Care plans and daily records were not always up to date, and management checks had not found these problems. The home also did not have effective systems for complaints, feedback and quality monitoring.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The Safe, Effective and Well-led questions were rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were not inspected at this visit, so earlier ratings were used.
Kind and respectful care
People received compassionate care. Staff protected privacy and dignity and responded to individual needs.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Staffing and activities
There were enough staff to provide one-to-one support and help people take part in activities and visits when they wanted.
“People had enough staff to support them one to one, and to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted.” from the report
Safeguarding and medicines
Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Medicines were prescribed, given, recorded and stored safely, and staff followed principles to avoid inappropriate over-medication.
“Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.” from the report
Choice and legal rights
People were involved in food, activities, care planning and decisions about their home. Staff understood mental capacity and best-interest decision-making.
“People and those important to them, including advocates, were involved in planning their care.” from the report
Nutrition risks
seriousRisks related to significant weight loss and malnutrition had not always been identified or managed. Healthcare instructions were not always followed.
“People's risk of poor nutrition had not been effectively assessed or mitigated. This had placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingSome care plans were out of date and did not show how people had been involved. Daily records had missing entries, and one person's records were filed under the wrong person.
“We checked daily records and found some days were missing entries and one person's records had been recorded in the wrong person's file.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits had not identified problems in care records or quality. The home did not have a robust system for monitoring complaints and concerns.
“Governance processes had not always been effective leading to a lack of management oversight, failure to identify areas for improvement found in our inspection and inconsistencies in the quality of care people received.” from the report
Limited communication and feedback
needs fixingCommunication tools were not always available to help people express their views. Feedback was not routinely sought from families and professionals.
“The provider did not seek feedback from family and services supporting people living at the service.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking people's weight and responding to weight loss or malnutrition risks?
- 02How do you make sure dietician and other healthcare instructions are included in care plans and followed by all staff?
- 03How are you checking that daily records are complete and filed under the correct person's name?
- 04What has changed in the complaints process, and how are concerns from families recorded and acted on?
- 05Have communication aids and staff training been put in place so every person can express their views?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and earlier ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 July 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, April 2021
Greenways was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and safe arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 7 April 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found that visitors were managed safely, with appointments, rapid testing and other safety measures. People had individual risk assessments for meeting family, and staff had infection control training. PPE was available, and the building and equipment were clean and in good repair.
The home was taking part in regular testing and vaccination arrangements. People's consent was obtained in line with legal requirements. Inspectors also found that audits were effective and that identified improvements were acted on immediately.
Visitor safety
Visits were by appointment and included safety measures to reduce the risk of infection. Individual risks were assessed, with alternative ways for people to meet family when needed.
“Arrangements for visitors to Greenways were in line with government guidance ensuring protection from catching or spreading infection.” from the report
Infection control training
Staff had completed infection control training that included extra COVID-19 information. PPE was available in good supply.
“Staff had completed infection, prevention and control training which had included additional COVID-19 related information.” from the report
Clean premises
Inspectors found that the building and equipment were clean and well maintained.
“The building and equipment were clean and in good repair.” from the report
Effective checks
The home's audits checked that practice followed best practice, and improvements were acted on promptly.
“Auditing systems and processes were effective at ensuring practices were in line with best practice.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 7 April 2021?
- 02How do you currently manage visits, including testing and individual risk assessments?
- 03How do you make sure staff keep their infection prevention and control training up to date?
- 04How do you check that PPE, testing and cleaning arrangements remain effective?
- 05How do you involve residents, families and health professionals when decisions about testing or vaccination are made?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it was inspected but not rated and did not assess all areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 April 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 Greenways
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- July 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 October 2014.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.