You are here

Greenways Care Home Inadequate

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 13 February 2020

Greenways Care Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 14 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 15 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There was no effective system in place to monitor the quality of the service. We identified seven breaches of regulation; these shortfalls had not been identified by the provider. There was no system in place to monitor the quality and safety of the environment or the care provided. We identified numerous maintenance issues, many of which had been reported, which had not been rectified.

People told us they felt safe at the service. However, people were not always protected from risks. People’s individual risks had not always been fully assessed. Thorough recruitment checks had not always been carried out and documented which posed a risk of employing unsuitable staff. Safeguarding procedures had not always been followed to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse.

Medicines were not always managed safely, there was no guidance in place for ‘as required’ medicines. However, spot checks had identified poor medicines administration on one occasion and action had been taken to prevent recurrence.

The decoration and some of the fabric of the building was in poor condition. Due to the poor quality of ensuite floors and poor maintenance not all areas could be thoroughly cleaned, putting people at risk of infection. There were insufficient measures in place to protect people from the risk of burns and scalds. People were unable to adjust the temperature of their rooms. Radiators had makeshift covers constructed of a variety of different materials. These were poorly fitted and in some cases, hanging off. A number of maintenance tasks at the service had been reported several months ago and were still unattended to.

People did not always receive individualised care which met their needs and preferences. For example, people had a ‘bath day’ each week. People could not always choose when to have a bath and there was no shower available. People’s care plans did not always contain sufficient information about the care and support they required. There were no completed plans in place to support people at the end of their lives.

People were not supported to have any community links. People told us they were sometimes bored and would like to go out, however they were not able to unless they had relatives to take them out. People told us they were not allowed to go out. They said they had been told it was not safe; however, none of these people had legal restrictions on their liberty in place.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice.

The poor condition of the service did not promote people’s dignity. However, people told us staff were kind. Staff were respectful and warm when they spoke about people. We observed kind and caring interactions. People were very positive about the food, there was a good system in place to identify people’s preferences and any specific foods they should avoid. People were supported to be independent in their personal care and mobility.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

The last rating for this service was Good (published March 2017).

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.


We have identified breaches in relation to individualised care, safe care and treatment, safeguarding, staff recruitment, cleanliness and quality of the environment and the management of the service at this inspection.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to

Inspection areas



Updated 13 February 2020

The service was not safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 13 February 2020

The service was not effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 13 February 2020

The service was not always caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 13 February 2020

The service was not responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 13 February 2020

The service was not well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.