Greenacres Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Systems were in place to review and learn from incidents, accidents and complaints. Although there was a low incidence of these events the registered manager and provider ensured action was taken where needed to mitigate future risks. Learning from incidents was shared with the staff team. Staff told us this information was passed on during team meetings, shift handovers and supervisions, which helped to drive improvements in the home.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

People and their relatives told us moving into the home had been a smooth process. This had helped reassure people their needs and preferences would be met. A relative said, “When we first went in [registered manager] talked to us for 2 hours and covered the whole induction process which was helpful.”

Care records contained up to date information about people’s needs, preferences and risks. A summary sheet was available for people to take with them if they transferred between services such as the care home and hospital. This meant people could receive consistent care.

Staff told us how they worked closely with relatives and other professionals such as district nurses and GPs to support people’s health and well-being. Care records confirmed this.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People told us they felt safe living at Greenacres Care Home. One person told us, “I feel safe; it is a lovely community.” A relative said, “[Relative] is absolutely safe and secure here and the carers understand the support [relative] needs.”

Systems were in place for reporting and monitoring safeguarding concerns. Staff understood how to raise concerns both internally and with external professionals. They received training about how to keep people safe from harm or abuse, including the mandatory training requirement for people with a learning disability and autism. Staff said they were confident any safeguarding concerns would be taken seriously and dealt with quickly.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found the registered manager and staff worked within the MCA guidelines and DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks were managed in the least restrictive way, with risk assessments in place and up to date. Risk assessments guided staff about how to safely and consistently support people. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the risks people encountered and sought to minimise them at every opportunity. A relative told us, “[Staff] understand any risks associated with [relative’s] condition and support [relative] appropriately. Relatives also commented on the consistent visibility of staff in communal areas which helped reduce risks related to, for example, poor mobility.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Environmental health and safety checks were carried out and showed the environment, and equipment had been checked and was in good working order. Required fire safety checks were completed and recorded. The registered manager showed us their plans and timescales to make improvements to the environment, including redecoration, replacement of an area of flooring that had become raised and their progress with replacement fire safety doors.

People and their relatives told us the home was well looked after. Bedrooms were personalised which helped people to feel comfortable. Furniture was well placed so that people could maintain their level of independence with mobility without fear of trip hazards. Staff told us maintenance and repairs were reported and carried out in a timely way.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People and their relatives told us there were enough staff, who knew their relatives well, to provide the care and support people needed. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s needs and preferences and told us they were informed of any changes in a timely way.

Safer recruitment practices and a comprehensive package of training helped staff to develop the skills needed to work effectively in the service. We observed staff implementing their training in situations such as moving people using equipment and providing support to eat and drink.

The registered manager had recently introduced a system of staff ‘champions’ for subjects such as nutrition, safeguarding and infection prevention and control. These roles help to promote best practice by providing expertise and support for other staff and driving continuous improvement within the service.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People and their relatives told us they always found the environment clean and tidy. One person said, “The cleaner does a really good job.” A relative told us, “[Staff] wear personal protective equipment (PPE) for personal care.”

Staff received training in infection prevention and control (IPC). They described, for example, how they managed laundry to ensure good hygiene standards. We observed staff following guidance for the appropriate use of PPE and good handwashing procedures.

The service had an infection prevention and control policy in place and staff worked with healthcare agencies to effectively manage the risk of infections or outbreaks. IPC checks were carried out regularly and any shortfalls were addressed.

Medicines were stored and managed safely, with trained staff and competency checks in place. Care records included information about the medicines people took and how they preferred to take them. An opportunity for improvement was identified to enhance the detail within medicine protocols, particularly regarding how some people may express pain or discomfort if they could not do so verbally. The registered manager took action to address this during the inspection. The registered manager also had regular meetings with pharmacists to promote good practice.