You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 14 February 2020

About the service

Greene House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal and nursing care to younger and older adults. The service provides specialist care to people with epilepsy and support for people who may also have a learning disability, autism, mental health condition or dementia.

Greene House is situated within a larger campus style setting owned and operated by the Epilepsy Society. Inside the campus, there are other registered care homes, communal facilities such as a recreation hall and coffee shop, community based healthcare professionals and the provider’s head office.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 14 people. Eleven people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs (apart from the house name), intercom, cameras or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

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

People were protected from abuse, neglect and discrimination. Most people's risk assessments were thorough and up-to-date and contained relevant information to ensure risks were mitigated as far as possible. Risks related to the premises were assessed and managed. There were enough staff deployed, albeit an ongoing vacancy pattern for care workers. The building was clean and tidy. Risks related to chemicals were not mitigated and needed action to reduce risks to people and others. However, the registered manager acted to negate the risks following the inspection and provided evidence.

People's likes, preferences and dislikes were considered and used in their everyday care. Staff had a good knowledge of people's needs. People received enough food and drinks to prevent malnutrition and dehydration. People's care was joined up with local and community-based health and social care professionals. The service was compliant with the provisions set out by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. There was a recent redecoration of the property, with some changes to the building layout. Staff had the necessary knowledge, skills and experience to support people.

The staff were kind and compassionate. People were satisfied with the support they received and told us they liked living at Greene House. People's rights were respected, and their dignity and privacy maintained. Where possible, people's independence was promoted. People were involved in their care planning and reviews.

Support plans were person-centred, detailed and contemporaneous. The daily notes were satisfactory. Most of the daily progress notes was task-based and not person-centred; the registered manager accepted this feedback. We made a recommendation about signage within the building to meet the minimum requirements set out in the NHS Accessible Information Standard. There was a satisfactory complaints mechanism in place. There was good planning and care for people's end of life care.

The provider had a clear and credible charter of people’s rights, which were respected at Greene House. Ther

Inspection areas



Updated 14 February 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 14 February 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 14 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 14 February 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 14 February 2020

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.