We carried out a review of the data available to us about Greenhill Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Greenhill Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Greenhill Care Home is a care home that provides personal care to 67 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. Each of the two floors is a self-contained unit, with bedrooms, lounge and dining areas, a kitchenette and bathrooms. There were 64 people living at the service when we undertook our inspection.
People’s experience of using this service:
People who lived at Greenhill Care Home received care from a staff team who were passionate about delivering a service based on individual needs. Staff knew each person well. People’s views were respected, and they were involved in everything that happened in the service. People were happy living there and relatives trusted the staff team to look after their family members.
Staff delivered care and support that was personalised and responsive to people’s likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff were kind, caring and motivated and people, their relatives and external professionals were complimentary about the care provided. Staff respected people’s privacy, dignity and independence and encouraged people to lead their life in the way they wanted to. Staff knew people extremely well and encouraged people to participate in a wide range of activities. People were encouraged to continue to pursue the hobbies and interests that they had prior to moving into the service. The service had its own transport and people enjoyed visiting local places.
Staff understood the risks to people and the measures in place to keep them safe. Systems were in place to manage people's medicines safely and to reduce the risks associated with the spread of infection. People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet and people were complimentary about the food provided.
Sufficient numbers of staff were employed to meet people's needs. Staff received training that gave them the necessary skills and knowledge to carry out their roles and meet the specific needs of people using the service.
People were supported to maintain good health. Staff made referrals to health professionals when required. People were provided with the care, support and equipment they needed to stay independent. People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Care plans guided staff to provide support that met people's needs which were in line with their preferences.
Systems were in place to monitor the service, which ensured that people's risks were mitigated, and lessons were learnt when things went wrong. There was an open culture within the service. People and staff could approach the registered manager who acted on concerns raised to make improvements to people's care.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection we rated this service Good (report published on 15 December 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we might inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The inspection took place on 13 October 2016 and was unannounced.
There was a manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People received care and support that met their needs while encouraging their independence. Risk assessments were in place for all aspects of people’s lives and these helped to ensure that people’s choices were not restricted. People felt safe living at the home and staff knew how to respond to any concerns that may affect people’s wellbeing. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited through a robust process. People’s medicines were managed safely and where possible people were encouraged to manage their own medicines.
Staff received a robust induction and on-going training to help ensure they had the appropriate skills for their role and further development opportunities were made available. People only received care once they had provided their consent and for those people unable to provide this, staff followed the appropriate procedures. People were provided with a variety of food and staff ensured people at risk of weight loss were appropriately monitored and supported. People had access to health and social care professionals as needed, and when they requested them.
People were treated with dignity and their privacy was promoted. People were involved in planning and developing their care and people’s confidentiality was promoted. People were able to pursue their individual interests as well as engage in meaningful activities both within the home and in the local community. People knew how to make a complaint, and where complaints were raised these were responded to promptly.
People were positive about the management of the home and the views of people were sought in relation to the management of the home. A robust system of auditing, monitoring, reviewing and improving the quality of service was in place, and the registered manager clearly led a service that promoted a positive and open culture.
We found that the provider was meeting the standards we had inspected. People and their relatives had been consulted on the care and support they needed. People received care and support in line with their agreed care plans. We noted that there was a system for the safe management of medicines and there were arrangements in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided by the home by seeking the views of people who lived there. Their comments indicated that they were fully satisfied with the quality of care they received. Records and confidential files had been kept safely and securely.
The provider and staff demonstrated they were aware of people’s cultural needs and for ensuring equality and valuing diversity.
We observed positive and respectful interaction between the people who live at Greeenhill Care Home and the staff who supported them. There was a calm atmosphere and people were being encouraged to engage with their surroundings and the activities taking place. One person we spoke with who had recently moved in. They said the staff 'can't do enough for you', they 'understand me', 'you can't fault it', 'the treatment is marvellous'. This was repeated by another person who said the staff 'do all they can for you' and it was 'all very good'.
During our visit we were able to speak with four relatives. They were positive about the service their relatives had been provided with. People told us that the home was spotless and commented on the landscaped gardens and country house style of the accommodation. The visitors we spoke with confirmed they were kept up to date with any changes in their relative's health or well-being.