Archived: Greenacre Residential Home

Below is a summary of what we found. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service caring?

We heard staff speaking with people in a kind and gentle manner and we observed that they provided care in an individualised and attentive way.

A regular visitor to the home told us that the people who used the service were, 'Treated like royalty.' They also said that, 'The care here is perfect; they are very good, it couldn't be any better."

A person who used the service said, "It's very good here, they are very helpful."

Is the service responsive?

A health professional who worked closely with the staff on the rehabilitation unit told us that they felt the care provided was appropriate to meet people's needs. They said that the communication with staff was clear and that they were responsive to instruction.

The activity provision at Greenacre Residential Home was designed to meet individual's needs and preferences. For example, we saw that a person who used the service had stated they wanted to go to the zoo. Records showed that this had taken place.

We found that the manager had documented any concerns that had been raised with them verbally. This showed that the manager listened to people's concerns and took them seriously.

Is the service safe?

We found that medicines were stored safely for the protection of people who used the service and that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed by their doctor.

We found that all kitchenettes were 'tired' and in need of refurbishment. In one kitchen we saw that the work top, cupboard doors and drawer fronts were damaged to the extent that they could not be effectively cleaned. We saw a toilet facility that had the pipework boxed in to reduce the build-up of dust. However, the laminate used to cover the pipework was damaged. This meant that the area was not 'wipe clean' and had the potential to have a negative impact on the control of infection.

We found that regular audits of records were undertaken to ensure that care plans and risk assessments were up to date. Regular audits were completed to identify the risk of malnutrition and falls. Staff training and development needs were reviewed on an on-going basis so that people were cared for by appropriately skilled and experienced staff.

We saw that equipment maintenance logs were kept, these recorded when equipment had been checked and serviced as appropriate.

We noted that there were detailed risk assessments in place including fire safety, infection control and first aid. This was in order to minimise the risk of injury to people who used the service and staff.

We found that the administrator's office door was standing open and that the office was unoccupied. We found that records relating to people's personal care needs were left unattended in communal areas. This meant that people's personal and confidential information was not always securely stored.

Is the service effective?

We saw that, where people did not have the capacity to make their own decisions, family members and advocates had been involved. We found that the provider had systems in place to ensure people's consent was gained before care or support was provided, and the provider acted in accordance with people's wishes.

Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Is the service well led?

People who used the service were asked for their views and feedback about the service and their comments were acted on. A relative told us that the manager was always responsive to any concerns they raised.

We saw evidence to confirm that a provider's representative visited the service monthly and completed a report of their audit. The manager told us the report was made available to them immediately so actions could be carried out promptly. We saw that these were followed up at the next visit to support continuous improvement.

We spoke with four people who used the service, three visiting relatives and one visiting professional. We also spoke to seven staff members, including the home manager. We found that people were satisfied with the care and support they received. A visiting professional told us they visited on a daily basis and commented that they thought staff were 'professional and approachable' and that 'Teamwork here is superb.'

We found the home had an effective system in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. One person who lived at the home said, 'I'm happy here, they keep the place very clean, we have extra cleaners when needed too'. We noted refurbishment of the home was almost complete on the ground floor and well underway on the first floor, meaning that the premises were safe, suitable and was being maintained appropriately.

We noted that personal files were well organised and contained documentation which provided a clear audit trail. This demonstrated that appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff commenced employment.

We found that staff were well led and supported to develop their skills from time to time and one visiting professional said, 'Staff are willing to learn which is lovely.'

We observed that people were offered support at a level which encouraged independence and assured their individual needs were met.

Care plans showed that people and their families had been involved in the development of their care plans. This was confirmed in discussions we had with people using the service.

We noted that some areas of the home were in need of attention, for example, paint work was scuffed and scratched making the home look tired and shabby.

Training and supervisions for staff were not fully up to date which meant people were being cared for by staff who were not always suitably skilled or supervised.

People felt their views were listened to and felt confident to make a complaint if they needed to.