Greenacres Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Staff asked people for consent before providing day‑to‑day care. For example, staff ensured people who were receiving support to eat were ready to have their meals. However, the provider did not always follow the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) when people were unable to make decisions. Mental capacity assessments had not been completed when restrictions such as bed rails were used for people who lacked capacity. While it was clear that these had been used to keep people safe, decisions were not supported by best‑interest assessments or recorded rationale.

Although staff practice was respectful and involved seeking verbal consent, the absence of MCA assessments meant the provider could not demonstrate that people’s rights were upheld when they could not consent for themselves.