CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Green
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found staff understood safeguarding, risks were assessed, there were enough staff and medicines were administered safely. They noted a previous minor medicines error and some issues with recording medicines training, which the home said had been addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and supervision and worked with health professionals to meet people's needs. Inspectors noted that confirmation of some Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications was not retained and efforts to chase assessments were not recorded.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as caring, respectful and knowledgeable about the people they supported. Inspectors saw people being involved in decisions and supported to communicate in their own ways.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised, reviewed and updated when people's needs changed. The home provided activities suited to people's abilities and preferences and had a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found experienced management, regular audits and an approach focused on improvement. They noted that some provider audit issues were labelled as needing immediate attention, although not all appeared urgent.
What inspectors found, February 2019
The Green was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few record-keeping issues to monitor.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 January 2019. One inspector reviewed information about the home, including the previous report and notifications. They looked at records for three people, observed care in communal areas, spoke with staff and managers, and received feedback from families and others.
The home supported up to 15 people with learning disabilities and some physical disabilities. There were 13 people living there during the visit. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training and care that respected people's choices, communication needs and independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says the service remained Good overall. This means inspectors found the care met the standard they expected at the time of this inspection, although they noted some areas where records and monitoring could be clearer.
Enough familiar staff
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs safely, including two waking night staff. It tried to use agency workers who knew the people living there.
“There were enough staff on duty at all times to meet people's diverse, individual needs safely and effectively.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive interactions. Staff knew people's preferences, communication methods and support needs, and promoted their dignity and independence.
“The committed, attentive and knowledgeable staff team provided care with kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected individual needs, choices, communication methods and abilities. Activities were adjusted to people's preferences, health and changing needs.
“People were provided with a range of activities, according to their needs, abilities, health and preferences.” from the report
Family and staff involvement
The management team listened to people, families and staff and recorded people's views in their reviews.
“The views of people, their families and friends and the staff team were listened to and taken into account by the management team.” from the report
Training records had omissions
needs fixingThe latest provider audit found missing entries in the electronic training records. The manager said these had been corrected, but families may want to check how this is now monitored.
“It was acknowledged that there had been issues with the electronic recording of training when completed and the latest provider audit had picked up omissions in recording.” from the report
Some legal-process records were incomplete
needs fixingThe home did not keep confirmation that new applications had been received and did not record efforts to chase assessments. The manager agreed to improve these records.
“We noted from records that confirmation of receipt of new applications were not retained and efforts to chase assessments were not recorded.” from the report
Some checks were not always on schedule
minorHealth and safety and maintenance checks were described as being completed mainly at the required intervals. This was not treated as a breach, but it is worth asking how missed checks are followed up.
“Health and safety and maintenance checks were completed mainly at the required intervals.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure all completed staff training is entered correctly in the electronic records?
- 02How do you record and follow up confirmation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications and requests for assessments?
- 03How do you check that health and safety and maintenance checks are completed on time?
- 04How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's communication methods, risks and preferences?
- 05What actions from the provider's improvement plan were still outstanding after this inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including all five CQC questions, and the report says all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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 The Green
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Wokingham
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 £1,260 a week. 71 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.