All inspections: Greenmantle Care Home - Care Quality Commission

This unannounced inspection took place on 16 June 2015. In January 2014, our inspection found that the nursing home provider breached regulations relating to care and welfare of people who use services, management of medicines and records. Following this inspection the provider sent us an action plan to tell us the improvements they were going to make.

Greenmantle Care Home is a privately owned care home without nursing for 15 older people. At the time of the inspection there were seven people using the service.

The service had two registered managers who shared responsibility for the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

We found that the premises were clean but some parts of the home were in need of refurbishment. For example, there were patches of peeling lino that could present a trip hazard to people in one bedroom. We saw worn toilet seat and fittings in a bathroom on the ground floor, and worn carpets and scuff marks on the walls. Even though the registered managers stated that they had a plan to refurbish the home, we found that the environment was not always safe for people.

Care plans were not reviewed monthly as stated in people's files. People's health conditions (for which they were receiving treatment) were not recorded in their files and there was no evidence they were reviewed. This meant that there was no historical information about people’s health conditions and the progress made.

People were happy with the service provided. Comments such as "The staff are excellent" and "good food [at the home]" indicated people's satisfaction with the service. We saw staff were friendly when interacting with and supporting people, for example, with their meal.

Staff told us they were supported by their managers and they had training opportunity to develop their skills. We noted that staff were experienced and knowledgeable about the care. Records showed staff had attended various training programmes including Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards is where a person can be lawfully deprived of their liberties where it is deemed to be in their best interests or for their own safety. The MCA is a law designed to protect and empower people who may lack the mental capacity to make their own decisions about their care and treatment.

The registered managers had various systems for checking and maintaining the service and facilities. We noted that staff had regular meetings and relatives completed surveys annually and gave feedback about the service. This helped the registered managers to understand and respond to people's views about the service.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

People's views and consent were sought before staff provided care and support to them. Basic care plans and risk assessments were in place. People were supported to access health and social care professionals when required. One person told us "the staff are kind, we have a good laugh. Yes I like it here." A relative told us "we talk about her health, they liaise with me and my brother regularly about any changes." Although people we spoke with were satisfied with the care and support they received from the staff, we found that care plans did not always accurately reflect people's needs leaving them at risk of receiving unsafe or inappropriate care and support. Relatives also told us "there is very little for them to do." Another said "staff seem very friendly but there doesn't seem to be a lot going on."

We found that procedures for monitoring and reviewing medicines had not always been followed. Record keeping and the recording of essential information was inconsistent and incomplete making it difficult to assess whether people were receiving the level of care that they required.

Sufficient and experienced staff were available to meet people's needs. Staff had received appropriate training and supervision to ensure that people were kept safe. Staff told us that they received appropriate training and support from the management team.

We were able to speak to two people that live in this home. They said the 'Food is good' and 'I like living here'.

Relatives we spoke to said that staff keep them updated; they know who to speak to if they wanted information or had any concerns. One relative said they would like an increase in the amount and variety of activities available for the people living in this home. The information contained in the care folders was limited particularly in relation to individual interests and choices.

We observed staff interacting with people living in this home. They treated people with kindness and concern. The food was varied and people appeared to enjoy what they were served. People living in the home looked well cared for and appeared comfortable in their environment.

The staff working in the home were given opportunities for professional development, they received the training and development they needed and demonstrated this in practice.

People and their relatives got the opportunity to share their views about how the home operated. The results of a quality assurance questionnaire that relatives completed were discussed at a meeting held in the home that everyone was invited to.

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

The people we spoke with were very happy with the care that they received. People said,

'Staff are very nice.' 'The food is very good.' 'I feel safe here.'

'I have no complaints.'

People who use the service told us they were happy with the general environment of the home and their rooms.

Relatives spoken to said, 'they treat him nicely.'

'The care staff are very friendly, helpful and attentive.'

'They always tell me if there is anything wrong with him.'

These older reports are from our old approaches to inspection, including those from before CQC was created.

Archived: Greenmantle Care Home

All Inspections

16 June 2015

During a routine inspection

7 January 2014

During a routine inspection

11 February 2013

During a routine inspection

15 September 2011

During a routine inspection

Reports under our old system of regulation