Greenmore Healthcare Services Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and relatives told us the provider had met with them to discuss their care and support needs, and they felt involved in this process. From the information shared an individual plan of care was developed and this was person centred and included information about people’s personal preferences and what they enjoyed doing and how they spent their time.

Staff spoken with knew how people liked to be supported and gave examples of people’s preferences. Staff told us they could access care plan information and also discuss care needs with people and their relatives. Staff told us they would report any changes in people’s needs to the provider, and these would be acted on. The provider acknowledged they needed to ensure further attention to detail was made in goal setting for people and risk management information and this is reported on in our safe section of this report.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Some improvements were needed in ensuring all people’s health and care needs were documented in people’s plans of care. Whilst the provider was able to share examples with us of healthcare partnership working, information to evidence this was not readily available in people’s care plans.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There was very limited information available in alternative formats for people who may find written information difficult to understand. The ‘Service User Guide’ contained some pictorial images to support people’s understanding, but no other documents were available in alternative formats.

The provider told us they were unaware of the Accessible Information Standard. However, care and support was provided to some people who may require additional support in accessing information. For example, people with sensory impairments. The provider told us large print and other formats could be made if needed. However, as a specialist service offering care and support to people within the service user band of learning disabilities andautism, no policies, such as a complaints policy, had been created in an accessible format for those people when needed. The provider noted this as an improvement they needed to make.

As part of our inspection, we reviewed the provider’s website and found some information was misleading to members of the public. For example, there was reference to registered nurses and occupational therapists being recruited. There was also reference to specialist services being provided for people with Community Treatment Orders and Ministry of Justice Conditions and Restrictions. Following a discussion around this, the provider took immediate action to revise their website and remove misleading information.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives told us they could easily contact the provider if they needed to give feedback of share a concern. One relative told us, “When my relative went into hospital, the staff member informed the provider and they contacted me. I have their phone number and can call them if needed.” Another relative told us, “We have no complaints, the provider is very approachable.” Where 1 person had some concerns about their support, they had been able to raise these with the provider, and a meeting had been arranged to resolve these.

The provider had a complaints policy in place and people were given information about how to complain. Where people had complained these had been documented.

All of the people currently supported by the provider were able to access the complaints policy or had a relative who could act on their behalf. However, we discussed the lack of accessible formats, such as an easy read pictorial complaints policy, for people with a learning disability, who may be supported by the service in the future. The provider told usthis was something they needed to work on to ensure it was always easy for people to share feedback.

People and relatives felt they were involved in their care and gave examples of this to us. However, some improvements were needed in the provider documenting this within people’s plans of care.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider and staff promoted people’s equal access to care services, avoiding discrimination based on protected characteristics.

Staff had not always received awareness training in promoting equality and diversity and leaders did not always check people, who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes, received consistent delivery in their care.

The provider had not effectively documented staff training to show staff had completed all the training they needed to support people to achieve their required care outcomes, so we were not assured all equality and diversity training had been shared with staff.

Whilst staff demonstrated they valued and respected the people they supported, they may benefit from awareness training in the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equalities Act 2010, the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which would further guide staff in supporting and enabling equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

Overall, people and relatives were positive about staff. However, 1 person told us they did not feel staff always had the skills they needed, especially when this was not their regular staff member and this impacted their experience of the service and outcomes.

People were not supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s plans of care did not include future wishes. The provider had not had conversations with people about planning for the future should their health deteriorate.