CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Greenwood
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found detailed, individual risk assessments, safe recruitment, enough staff on shifts and safe systems for storing and giving medicines.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and regular supervision. People's nutritional, health and communication needs were assessed and supported, including specialist needs such as epilepsy, PEG feeding and diabetes.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and attentive. Inspectors found that privacy, dignity, independence and people's individual differences were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly updated. People were offered choices and activities suited to their wishes, including outings, social activities and the Greendays programme.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff were described positively by people, relatives and professionals. The home used feedback, audits and incident reviews to identify learning and plan improvements.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred respite care across all five areas.
This was a planned inspection of the home on 18 and 19 November 2019. One inspector spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home provides short stays and respite care for up to 15 young people and adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people were safe, supported by enough staff and given care that was tailored to their needs. Medicines were stored and given safely, and staff had relevant training.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care and offered choices about activities, food and how they spent their time. The home had a wide range of activities, including outings and the Greendays programme.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good. This means inspectors found the service consistently met the required standards at the time of the inspection. The previous inspection was also rated Good.
Individual risk planning
Risk assessments were tailored to people's needs and reviewed when their circumstances changed. Families, staff and professionals were involved in these reviews.
“Support plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly and reviews took place if people's support needs changed.” from the report
Meaningful activities
The home offered activities based on people's interests and goals. Greendays gave people who stayed at home during the day further opportunities, outings and achievements.
“Activities were tailored to meet people's needs and wishes.” from the report
Respect and dignity
Inspectors found that staff respected people's privacy, dignity, independence, communication needs and personal differences.
“People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected by staff.” from the report
Good management checks
The home had audits and quality checks covering areas such as medicines, incidents, training and care. Learning was used to make changes.
“There were robust quality assurance processes in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you check and record the medicines my relative brings with them for a respite stay?
- 02How will you make sure the staff-to-person ratio is suitable for my relative's individual risks and support needs?
- 03How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing their care plan and risk assessments?
- 04Which Greendays activities and community outings could be offered to my relative?
- 05How will staff recognise and respond if my relative communicates pain or illness using pictures, signs or changes in behaviour?
This was a full inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 January 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, January 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised respite care, with a medicines-recording issue to improve.
This was an inspection on 1 November 2016. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with people staying there, relatives, staff and health professionals, and observed care. They reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home provides short stays and respite care for up to 16 younger adults with learning disabilities. Ten people were staying there during the inspection. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, personalised care, good support for health needs, and activities linked to people's interests.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the service met the standards they assessed, although they recommended better checking and recording of some medicines received by the home.
Kind communication
Staff understood how people communicated, including when they could not speak. Inspectors saw staff listen carefully and help people feel relaxed.
“Staff communicated skilfully with people using their preferred methods and displayed a warm and caring attitude.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's health needs, preferences, background and communication. Staff reviewed them during stays and adapted support when needs changed.
“Care delivered was personalised and ensured people's health, welfare, social and leisure needs were met during their stay.” from the report
Useful activities
People could continue with day services and take part in varied activities and trips. These included community outings and events organised around people's interests.
“Activities reflected people's interests and preferences and were varied and meaningful and promoted social inclusion within the service and wider community.” from the report
Good facilities
The refurbished home had spacious rooms, en-suite facilities, accessible areas and equipment for people with different physical and sensory needs.
“The accommodation had been refurbished to a very high standard since the last inspection and was spacious, comfortable and welcoming.” from the report
Support for families
Relatives said communication was good and the home understood the importance of flexible respite care. Staff made changes to bookings when family circumstances changed.
“The registered manager and staff understood the importance of respite care for parents and families and the service was flexible in order to meet their needs.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingSome handwritten medicine entries were not signed by two staff. Inspectors recommended following national guidance on medicine record keeping, and the manager acted during the inspection to improve records of medicines received.
“We found handwritten entries on medicine administration records which had not been signed by two staff to ensure accuracy.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after inspectors found medicine entries that had not been signed by two staff?
- 02How are medicines brought in by families checked and recorded when a person arrives for a respite stay?
- 03What was the outcome of the complaint that was still being dealt with by the local authority at the time of inspection?
- 04How will you make sure staff understand each person's preferred communication method and changing needs?
- 05What activities and community outings are currently available for someone with my relative's interests and abilities?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 January 2017 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 Greenwood
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East 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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.