CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Greystoke Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home required improvement in how it was managed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 September 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, a relative, a visitor, staff and the management team. They observed care, a meal and medicines being given. They also checked care records, staff files, rotas, complaints, training and safety records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine practices, suitable training, access to healthcare and respectful relationships. People had personalised care plans and activities were available.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. One allegation of abuse had not been reported to the CQC as required. The home's checks had also missed some concerns, including gaps in care plan reviews, limited resident meetings, confusion about some menu names and mixed views about night staffing.
The overall rating was Good. This means the inspectors found the care met the expected standard overall, but the weaker management arrangements needed attention.
Safe care
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and staff had guidance to support people safely. People said they felt safe and comfortable in the home.
“People told us they felt safe living in the home and we observed people were relaxed and comfortable.” from the report
Medicines
Medicine records were completed properly at this inspection. This was an improvement on the previous inspection, when there had been gaps in records for medicines given when needed.
“At this inspection we found staff completed the MARs in line with current best practice.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built positive relationships with people and supported their dignity, privacy and independence.
“People were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's needs, and staff could explain how people preferred to be supported. Activities and one-to-one options were available.
“People received personalised care from a staff team who responded to their needs.” from the report
Training and healthcare
Staff received relevant training and people had access to GPs, nurses and other health professionals when needed.
“People received effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities.” from the report
Incident reporting
seriousAn allegation about a person's care had not been reported to the CQC without delay. The inspectors discussed this with the management team.
“One incident regarding an allegation of abuse had not been reported to the Commission for their review without delay in line with health and social care regulations.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingThe home's audits did not consistently identify issues raised by people or found by inspectors. This included concerns about night staffing, menus and resident involvement.
“However, these had not addressed all the issues we highlighted at this inspection.” from the report
Care plan reviews
needs fixingSome planned review dates had been missed, and some electronic care plans did not contain enough detail for new staff.
“Also the dates the provider had planned to review each care plan had not been adhered to.” from the report
Resident involvement
minorResident meetings had been infrequent and a residents council was still being set up. Inspectors could not check the minutes of previous meetings.
“We were told there were few formal resident meeting opportunities and the last one had taken place approximately six months prior to the inspection.” from the report
Meal information
minorSome people were confused by the names of main meals. Staff did not always know what the names meant, so the inspectors asked the home to review this.
“It's got fancy names and I ask what it is and they (staff) don't know.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every allegation of abuse or poor care is reported to the CQC without delay?
- 02How do you check that care plans and risk assessments are reviewed on time and contain enough detail for new staff?
- 03What has changed about night staffing since the inspection, and how do you decide when more staff are needed?
- 04Have resident meetings or the residents council been established, and how are people's views recorded and acted on?
- 05Have the menus been changed so people can understand what each meal is?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the service, covering all five key questions and reviewing care, staffing, medicines, records, complaints and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 March 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.
Every inspection of Greystoke Manor
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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.