CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Greenwood Lodge
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including protective equipment, testing, hygiene, social distancing, safe admissions and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, August 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during a targeted visit.
Inspectors visited the home on 12 August 2020. The visit was announced and focused only on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
They found enough protective equipment, and saw staff using it in line with national guidance. Cleaning, disinfecting, staff training, hand hygiene checks and social distancing were also in place.
There were strict arrangements for visitors, including advance booking, a telephone protocol discussion and full protective equipment. Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, testing, safe admissions and managing possible outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the wider areas of care.
Protective equipment
The home had enough protective equipment, and staff were seen using it in line with national guidance.
“The provider had ensured there was sufficient Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in place and we observed staff using this in line with national guidance.” from the report
Cleaning and disinfection
Cleaning and disinfection were treated as a priority. The home had access to fogging equipment to support prompt action if people developed symptoms.
“Cleaning and disinfecting the service was seen as a priority.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had infection control training, their competence had been checked and hand hygiene observations had taken place.
“Staff received training in relation to infection control and their competency had been assessed.” from the report
Visitor arrangements
Visits were arranged in advance, visitors discussed the required process by telephone and were given full protective equipment.
“There was a system in place for visitors to the service. However, there was strict guidance for visitors to follow.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection control arrangements are in place now, and have they changed since this inspection?
- 02How are visitors currently booked in, briefed and provided with protective equipment?
- 03How often are staff infection control skills and hand hygiene checked?
- 04What is the current process for testing people living in the home and staff?
- 05Where can I see the latest full inspection report covering care, staffing and management?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the home was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 August 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, July 2019
Greenwood Lodge is rated Requires Improvement, with kind and personalised care but safety, food support and management concerns.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with seven people, six staff members and relatives, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was caring and responsive. Staff knew people well, respected their choices and supported independence. Care plans were personalised, activities were available and people were supported to access healthcare and maintain relationships.
Inspectors found important shortfalls in infection control and in following one person's safe diet. Food choices were limited, staff supervision was not fully in place and management checks had not identified all the problems found.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The home had held this overall rating for three inspections in a row.
Kind and respectful support
People appeared relaxed and at ease. Staff respected people's dignity, beliefs and cultural needs, and offered reassurance when people became anxious.
“Staff had created a relaxed and friendly home. People's body language indicated they were at ease.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, routines, histories and cultural needs. Staff knew people's preferences and used this information to provide individual support.
“Care plans contained detailed information about people's likes and dislikes, routines, personal history, cultural and religious needs.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were supported to take part in everyday tasks and develop skills. Inspectors saw an example of someone learning to make their bed and breakfast with supervision.
“People's independence was promoted. For one person, they had never been independent before but were now making their own bed and making their own breakfast with supervision.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were stored safely and administration records were appropriately completed. Inspectors found enough staff on duty and safe recruitment checks.
“We reviewed the medicine administration records (MAR) for all people receiving prescribed medicines and found medicines administration had been appropriately recorded.” from the report
Activities and community links
The home had an activity coordinator and supported people with activities inside and outside the home. It also had links with local community groups.
“The provider had built up good relationships with the community.” from the report
Infection control
needs fixingInspectors saw open bags of soiled laundry, an open sluice room, mops left in used water and areas needing a deep clean. The manager acted on these concerns during the inspection.
“On arrival we observed full red bags, left open on the floor of a communal passageway and just outside a kitchen.” from the report
Unsafe diet support
seriousStaff gave crisps to a person who was assessed as having a choking risk and needing a soft or fork-mashable diet. Inspectors said staff should have provided a safer alternative.
“However, we saw staff provided this person with crisps. We questioned why, and we were told this person loved crisps and gets upset if they don't get them.” from the report
Limited meal choice
needs fixingAt the observed lunch there was only one main meal and one pudding option. People could ask for alternatives, but picture menus were not yet available.
“We observed the lunch time meal experience, there was only one main meal option and one pudding option.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingStaff had not received adequate supervision. The manager had identified this and introduced a matrix showing planned supervisions.
“Staff were not fully supported with supervision. The registered manager had already identified this, they had a matrix to show upcoming supervisions which had been booked in.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingThe home's audits and checks had not identified all the problems found by inspectors. Further work was also needed on the building and on keeping families updated.
“However, systems that were in place to monitor key aspects of the service had failed to identify the concerns we found during the inspection.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every person receives the diet recommended by health professionals, especially where there is a choking risk?
- 02What has been done to improve infection control, including laundry bags, the sluice room, cleaning and the removal of out-of-date food?
- 03How often does each staff member receive supervision, and can you show how missed supervisions are now tracked?
- 04What meal choices and accessible picture menus are currently available to people?
- 05What building improvements have been completed, and how are families now kept informed about their relative's progress?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous rating was Requires Improvement overall, with Responsive improving to Good and Effective falling from Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 July 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 Greenwood Lodge
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 January 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.