You are here

Archived: Greenacres Residential Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

The inspection took place on 28 April 2016 and was unannounced.

We last inspected this location on 13 September 2013, when we found the service to be compliant with all the regulations we assessed at that time.

Greenacres is a large purpose built home situated in the village of Standish, which sits on the outskirts of Wigan town centre. It is part of Croftwood care which is owned by Minster Care Group. The home is registered to provide care and support for up to 40 older people. There is a residential unit that can house 28 people and 'Langtree Court' which can accommodate 12 people living with a diagnosis of dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 39 people living at Greenacres. There was one vacancy on the residential unit. Both units have communal lounge and dining areas. Rooms in the residential unit are located upon two floors with a passenger lift for access whilst Langtree court is a purpose built bungalow. Car parking is available at the home.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe living at the home. People had comprehensive risk assessments which were reviewed and updated in a timely way to meet people’s changing needs. People and their relatives told us they were well informed and had been involved in the assessments and planning of the care and support received.

The home had suitable safeguarding procedures in place and staff were able to demonstrate that they knew how to safeguard people and were aware of their roles, responsibilities and the alert process. Appropriate employment checks had been conducted before new staff commenced employment in the home, to make sure as far as possible that they were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people.

The home had sufficient numbers of staff deployed which was formally calculated based on people’s dependency. We found staff were able to meet people’s needs efficiently and all the people spoken with confirmed their needs were met in a timely way.

Staff felt well supported. Staff received an induction, supervision, annual appraisal and sufficient training to promote better outcomes for people.

People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). When people could not make certain decisions for themselves, people’s rights were protected and ‘best interest’ decisions were conducted in partnership with families, professionals and advocacy services. Staff understood the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and recognised that people were not to be restricted unnecessarily.

People were supported to attend health care appointments and received healthcare that supported them to maintain their wellbeing. People were offered a choice of foods and their suggestions were considered when meal planning.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained and people told us that staff were respectful of their wishes. People were encouraged to maintain their relationships with friends and family and there were no prescriptive visiting times imposed by the home.

People’s independence was encouraged and staff balanced this with providing appropriate care and support. People spoke positively of the staff and valued the relationships that had formed.

People’s life plans were reflective of their preferences and needs. Staff also demonstrated a good understanding of the needs and wishes of the people they supported.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. They told us they were confident in the manager and had never had any concerns or raised an issue. People were asked for their input in how the home was run through resident meetings and surveys had recently been sent to people and their relatives to illicit their feedback and drive improvements.

The manager and provider had effective procedures to measure the quality of the care received. It was evident that areas identified had been addressed and there was a clear audit trail of actions implemented.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

The service was safe.

The service had safeguarding and whistleblowing policies and procedures which staff demonstrated they knew in order to keep people safe.

Risk assessments were comprehensive, reviewed regularly and changed in a timely way to meet people’s needs.

The service had arrangements in place for recruiting staff safely and there were enough staff on duty with the right skills, knowledge and experience to meet people’s needs.

Processes were in place to ensure people’s medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

The service was effective

Staff told us they received training relevant to their role and had regular supervision.

Staff understood the importance of obtaining consent and supported people's rights under the Mental Capacity Act.

People were offered a choice of food and drink and supported to maintain a healthy diet.

People had access to healthcare professionals to maintain good health.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

The service was caring

People were treated with kindness, care and respect by staff who promoted their independence.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

People were listened to and were supported to make their own decisions and choices.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

The service was responsive

People's choices and preferences were taken into account by staff providing care and support.

People were actively encouraged to maintain their relationships and there was an activities programme to reduce the risk of social isolation.

A complaints procedure was in place and staff knew how to respond to complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

The service was well-led

The culture of the service was open and inclusive. The manager was visible to staff, relatives and people who used the service and we received positive feedback about their leadership from people, their relatives and staff.

The provider and registered manager carried out audits and checks to

make sure people were receiving a quality service.