Greenhurst Care

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to outstanding. This meant people were truly respected and valued as individuals; and empowered as partners in their care in an exceptional service.
 

This service scored 90 (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 was exceptional at ensuring people were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity, and this was embedded in everyday practice and organisational culture.

People consistently experienced care that went beyond task based support and reflected genuine warmth, empathy and emotional intelligence. People, relatives and health professionals spoke highly of the staff comments included, “Really nice, friendly, reliable, very capable, trustworthy”, “Friendly, patient, approachable, caring and capable staff” and “All very caring and likeable. Very professional and calm.” Healthcare professionals consistently described staff as kind, compassionate and respectful, noting that emotional support was provided alongside physical care. Relatives reported feeling reassured and confident that their family members were treated with dignity and genuine care.

Staff knew people well and responded sensitively to both verbal and non verbal cues, adjusting their approach to how people were feeling on the day. Records showed staff took time during visits, did not rush care and prioritised people’s comfort and emotional reassurance, particularly when people were anxious, tired or unwell. For example, care notes described staff recognising fatigue, supporting people gently with personal care and nutrition, offering reassurance and fluids, and ensuring people were settled and comfortable before leaving.

People confirmed their dignity was protected by staff at all times. Care plans clearly instructed staff on maintaining privacy during personal and continence care, respecting people’s appearance, routines and personal identity. People were supported to maintain pride in howthey looked, including hair, clothing and jewellery, which was important to their sense of self. A person told us how they liked their hair arranged in a certain way which the staff had learnt.

The provider was exceptional at treating people as individuals and placing people’s lived experience, identity and preferences at the centre of care.

Care planning was highly personalised, detailed and clearly written around each person rather than being generic. Plans included people’s life histories, relationships, interests, cultural preferences, communication needs and how they wished to be addressed. Staff supported people to reengage with hobbies from their past which they thoroughly enjoyed doing again such as gardening and sewing. Staff supported another person to reengage with their faith and friendships that had been lost due to their declining health. This meant people’s well-being and social circles had improved and developed with support from the staff.

Staff were guided to understand the person behind the care needs, which supported meaningful and respectful interactions. For people with dementia or fluctuating capacity, plans explicitly instructed staff to assess needs and abilities at every visit and adapt support, accordingly, ensuring care remained responsive and appropriate.

People were actively involved in decisions about their care wherever possible, and their consent was sought routinely. Where capacity fluctuated, staff were guided to involve people as much as possible and to make best interest decisions informed by people’s known wishes, routines and values. This ensured people remained central to decision making rather than passive recipients of care.

The provider demonstrated creativity and flexibility in meeting individual needs. For example, training sessions were held with staff regarding how to change a hearing aid battery and clean the hearing aid tubing, which enabled people to hear more clearly. Accessible information standards were applied in a personalised way, including adapting communication for hearing loss, reading information aloud where people could not read independently, and using technology such as voice activated prompts to support understanding and independence. Staff were thoughtfully matched with people based on shared interests, which strengthened relationships and improved engagement.

The provider was exceptional at promoting independence, choice and control, ensuring people remained in charge of their lives while receiving the right level of support. People confirmed staff promoted their independence a person said when speaking about the staff, ‘They are very patient with me as I take time to walk, and I can't always hear what is said the first time.’

Care was delivered with a clear philosophy of supporting, not replacing, independence. Care plans explicitly identified what people could do for themselves and how staff should encourage this safely. Staff provided prompts, reassurance and supervision where needed, stepping in only when necessary. This approach enabled people to retain skills, confidence and a sense of autonomy.

People were supported to make meaningful choices about their daily lives, including routines, activities, meals and how care was delivered. Assistive technology was used creatively to enhance independence, such as voice activated reminders for medication and hydration, reducing reliance on care visits and increasing people’s sense of control. People were supported to manage aspects of their personal care, medication and daily living wherever possible, with risks assessed and balanced rather than avoided. For example, this enabled two people to retain their independence and reduced the need for an additional care call.

The provider also supported people to maintain control over future decisions. ReSPECT plans, advance wishes and DNACPR decisions were completed in partnership with people and theirfamilies and clearly communicated to staff and professionals. This ensured people’s preferences about treatment, hospital admission and remaining at home were respected consistently.

The provider always responded to people’s immediate needs in a timely and appropriate way. Staff monitored people closely and acted promptly when changes in health or wellbeing were identified. Records showed staff sought medical advice quickly, contacted GPs and district nurses without delay and took proactive steps to avoid unnecessary hospital admissions.

The provider supported workforce wellbeing and enabled staff to deliver high quality care. Staff described feeling valued, supported and listened to through an open door culture, regular supervisions, spot checks and appraisals. The provider actively supported staff during difficult personal circumstances, offering compassionate leave, flexible working patterns, emotional support and regular check ins.

Training records showed staff received a wide range of mandatory and role specific training, with additional learning opportunities discussed during team meetings. Staff were involved in service development and encouraged to share ideas and raise concerns.

Staff received regular, structured supervision, including observed practice in people’s homes covering moving and handling, medication administration, infection control and person centred care. Where learning needs or concerns were identified, these were followed up promptly through additional supervision or direct support. Staff morale was high, supported by an open door management approach, flexible working, compassionate leave and active monitoring of work–life balance.