Archived: Greenacres Care Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ Infection control policies had been updated to reflect current national guidance. Information and guidance on infection control measures in place were available for staff and people who lived at Greenacres. Additional signage was displayed with information and guidance on COVID-19 restrictions for visitors.

¿ Staff had received training about good practice for infection prevention and control, including how to don and doff personal protective equipment (PPE) safely.

¿ A room had been isolated and allocated for staff to use when entering and leaving the building. Staff used the room to change in and out of their uniform and don their PPE when starting a shift.

¿ There were sufficient PPE supplies in place including masks, visors, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser to ensure safe infection prevention and control practices were undertaken. There were sufficient hand washing facilities and PPE stations were situated throughout the service. Staff had access to PPE and were observed wearing this in line with national guidance.

¿ The provider had ensured people were admitted into the service safely following government guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. The provider put in place risk assessments which clearly identified people at high risk of COVID-19 infection and the measures in place to support them. This meant staff had clear guidance on how to support people during the COVID-19 pandemic.

¿ A recent outbreak of COVID-19 at the service had been managed well and the plans in place to support people had been utilised safely. People were supported to isolate in their rooms.

¿ The service followed the current guidelines for care home testing; an enhanced testing regime was implemented during the outbreak. This was to ensure if people or staff had contracted COVID-19, measures were put in place in a timely way.

¿ People were supported to keep in touch with their relatives and friends through telephone and video calls. The provider had also built a visiting pod with screening to minimise the risk of spreading infection and to enable people to continue to receive their visitors in a comfortable and safe way.

¿ Since the outbreak the provider had maintained a no visiting policy with an exception for people who were nearing the end of their life. The provider kept their visiting policy under review to ensure they supported people to keep safe.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Greenacres provides accommodation for up to sixteen older people with care needs. On the day of our inspection 14 people were living at the home.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring, that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

We found systems and processes were in place to keep people safe. Staff understood their responsibilities for safeguarding people they cared for and assessed risks to their health and safety. Measures were in place to reduce these risks and people were supported to stay safe, whilst not unnecessarily restricting their freedom. Incidents and accidents were reported and the provider completed an analysis of the events and identified actions, to reduce the risk of similar incidents happening again.

Medicines were generally managed effectively and safely. The premises and environment was well maintained and the required safety checks were completed. Infection prevention and control was effectively managed.

Staff received appropriate training for their role and they were supported to further develop their knowledge and skills. People’s needs were assessed and care was delivered in line with national guidance. Care was responsive to people’s needs and wishes. People felt they had a voice and staff listened to them to identify their wishes. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. When people were unable to make decisions about their care and support, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were followed.

Staff had developed caring relationships with people and treated them with kindness and compassion. Staff treated people in a respectful and inclusive manner and their opinions and views on their care were recognised and acted upon.

People continued to receive care that was responsive to their individual needs. Staff had a detailed knowledge of the people they cared for and they responded effectively to their needs and wishes. People were treated equally, without discrimination and information was accessible. People were encouraged to maintain their relationships and contacts outside the home. Activities were based on people’s interests and wishes.

The registered manager and provider provided good leadership and support to staff. The provider had put processes in place to support the manager and staff. The views of staff, people using the service and relatives were actively sought and listened to. Quality audits were in place to enable continuous improvement in the quality of the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We also looked at records. These included care records and information about how the service operated.

One person told us, 'I have not been here long but the care is first class. I plan to go home at some point and the home is supporting me with all my plans and decisions.'

A visiting relative said, 'Visitors come and go throughout the day. There is always something going on here and I think the care is given in a way that makes it feel like my home as well as my relatives.'

People were supported sensitively and their dignity maintained when staff provided physical care. Staff also encouraged people to take part in meaningful activities.

We found that the Home Owner had managed and monitored the service regularly and gained views on the service from people who used the service and their relatives.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

We found people were cared for in a clean, well presented home. People's care was based about their individual needs. The staff provided care in a pleasant and professional manner and had time to interact with people. One person living at the home said, 'The staff and owner are wonderful, they cannot do enough for you.'

We saw the cook provided a choice of hot and cold foods at each mealtime and snacks throughout the day. One relative told us, 'The food is absolutely wonderful.'

We looked at the premises and saw it was in a good state of repair. Equipment had been serviced at regular intervals and the home possessed valid gas and electrical safety certificates. We saw the kitchen had been awarded 5 stars following an environmental health inspection in May 2012.