Greenmore Healthcare Services Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

People and relatives felt the provider and care staff showed kindness and compassion toward them. One person told us, “I feel very comfortable with the staff, we are happy together and chat about our lives.”

People felt they were treated with dignity. One person told us, “I have all female care staff, that is our choice. They go out of their way to do what we want, if they don’t know something they will ask and put things right.”

Staff spoke with demonstrated a caring attitude. One staff member told us, “The person I support is like a family member to me."

The provider did not always make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Whilst the provider did treat people as individuals, they did not consistently make sure people’s care and support met their needs. For example, the provider had failed to put medication administration records into place for people supported with their medicines. This meant staff did not have important information available to them and posed risks of people’s individual needs either not being met or not being met in a safe way.

Some people experienced high levels of anxiety and while staff spoken with knew how to respond to this, the person’s plan of care did not direct staff on actions to take. This meant any staff member covering a care call did not have the information readily available to them to refer to when needed.

The provider did take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. While information was not always documented, people and relatives confirmed they were asked about their preferences during their initial assessment.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People had consistency in their care staff, and this promoted a positive relationship whereby staff knew people well. Staff spoken with gave us examples of how they promoted independence. One staff member told us, “I hand [name] the mirror, so they can do their hair and face. It would upset [name] if I did the things they can do for themselves.”

One person told us, “Staff are very caring in their actions, they help me and accommodate my requests. They never say ‘no’ and they help with communication needs.”

One person told us they felt on the few occasions staff covered a care call they did not always know them well. Some improvement was needed in people’s care plans to inform staff on how to promote a person’s independence, so this could be referred to, for example, when staff covered a care call in the absence of a usual staff member.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The provider and care staff met people’s immediate needs. One person told us, “I wasn’t feeling so well the other week, and the staff offered to call the doctor, but I wasn’t that bad so said it wasn’t needed.” One relative told us, “I know if the staff were out with [name] and they became unwell, they would call me immediately.”

One staff member described to us how they recognised and responded to a person’s anxiety. They gave examples to us of how, through interaction, the person’s anxiety could be reduced. Another staff member told us, “If I saw a person’s catheter was not draining, I would help sort this out and contact the district nurses.”

The provider did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Improvement was needed to ensure staff had the training, knowledge, skills and experience for their roles. While staff had completed some training and had some previous employment training, skills and experience, the provider had not completed any competency checks to assure themselves staff had the skills they needed. For example, 1 staff member supported a person with diabetes, but the provider had not completed any checks on the staff’s knowledge about this health condition. Where staff used moving and handling equipment, no checks had been carried out to ensure they did this in a safe way for their own wellbeing and that of the person. This oversight by the provider meant they were not supportive in ensuring staff could deliver person centred care and ensure people were cared for safely.

The provider had a range of policies and procedures for staff to refer to when needed. However, the provider’s medication policy directed staff to follow a medication administration record to ensure the safe handling of a person’s medicines, but this was not in place for staff to follow.