CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Greenways Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe and inspectors found enough staff to respond promptly. Medicines, recruitment, infection control, environmental checks and risk management were found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff training in essential areas was up to date and people had access to food, drink and healthcare. Some supervision records lacked meaningful detail, and some staff did not understand mental capacity law well, although further training had been arranged.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff promoted privacy, dignity, consent and independence, but inspectors found that one person did not always receive appropriate advocacy.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Staff provided exceptionally compassionate end-of-life care and supported families as well as residents. Activities were wide-ranging and linked to people's hobbies, interests, religious beliefs and community connections.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and positive culture, approachable leadership and effective quality checks. People's feedback was sought and acted upon.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found especially responsive care, including outstanding end-of-life support, but noted some records and legal understanding needed improvement.
The inspection took place on 23 and 25 October 2018. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and other professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and management information.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and well-led care. It was rated Outstanding for responsive care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk assessments, kind staff and detailed, person-centred care plans.
The strongest area was how staff supported people and families at the end of life. The home also offered a wide range of activities linked to people's interests and had good community links. Inspectors found some areas to improve, including the detail in supervision records, some staff's understanding of mental capacity law and advocacy for one person at risk of choking.
The overall rating fell from Outstanding at the previous inspection in February 2016 to Good. The report says the change reflected the evidence found at this inspection. Responsive care was still rated Outstanding, while effective and caring care changed from Outstanding to Good.
End-of-life care
Staff worked closely with health professionals and supported people and families with comfort, dignity and emotional care at the end of life.
“Staff provided extremely compassionate end of life care.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were encouraged to continue their hobbies and interests. Activities included outings, pet therapy, gardening, music, quizzes and reminiscence.
“People were actively encouraged to bring their hobbies and interests with them when they moved in, which meant people's lives had continuity and individuality.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff spoke kindly and calmly, asked for consent and supported people to maintain their independence and dignity.
“Staff spoke to people kindly and calmly and explained what they were doing before providing care.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Medicines records checked were accurate, and staff competency was checked.
“There were enough staff on shift to meet people's needs quickly and keep them safe.” from the report
Positive leadership
Staff described an open culture and felt able to raise concerns. Audits led to action plans and people's feedback was acted upon.
“There was an effective quality assurance system in place to monitor key areas such as safeguarding concerns, accidents, incidents and medicines administration.” from the report
Supervision records
needs fixingStaff received regular supervision and appraisals, but the records were not specific enough and lacked meaningful detail. The manager said this would be improved.
“Supervision records were not specific to each staff member and lacked meaningful detail.” from the report
Mental capacity training
needs fixingSome staff did not have a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act. Further training had been arranged, but the family should check that this was completed and effective.
“Some staff members we spoke with did not have a good understanding of this legislation.” from the report
Advocacy and choking risk
seriousOne person with specific nutritional needs and a higher risk of choking did not always have advocacy support. The manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“This person was not always able to make decisions about their needs in this area and their family had limited involvement in care planning.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to make supervision records specific to each staff member and more meaningful?
- 02What further Mental Capacity Act training was arranged, and have all relevant staff completed it?
- 03How do you arrange advocacy for people who cannot make important decisions about their care?
- 04What safeguards are now in place for people with nutritional needs and a risk of choking?
- 05How do you make sure the strong end-of-life care and personalised activities described in the report continue consistently?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with the first visit unannounced and the second visit announced. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 February 2019 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 Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Outstanding to Good.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- June 2016OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 April 2011.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in 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.