Greenhurst Care

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.
 

This service scored 86 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture that was fully embedded across the service and consistently focused on delivering high-quality, person-centred care. Leaders created an open, inclusive and supportive culture where people, relatives and staff were encouraged to share their views and contribute to the development of the service. Greenhurst Care remained a small, family-led service with a clear commitment to supporting people to live independently in their own homes. This culture was reflected in highly personalised care planning, where people’s preferences, routines, life histories and aspirations were central to the care they received.

Leaders were highly visible and led by example. They consistently modelled dignity, inclusion and person-centred care through their day-to-day practice, supervision and training. Rather than relying solely on policies, leaders reinforced expectations through their actions, creating a culture where staff understood and embraced the provider's values. This strong leadership presence ensured the service's vision and values were sustained and consistently applied across all areas of care delivery.

The provider demonstrated commitment to staff wellbeing and work-life balance. Staff received regular support through annual appraisals, monthly supervision, one-to-one meetings and informal opportunities to discuss concerns. Leaders responded compassionately when staff experienced personal difficulties, including bereavement and mental health challenges, by offering flexible leave, regular wellbeing checks and additional emotional support. They also recognised the importance of maintaining family connections and had approved extended periods of leave for staff to visit relatives overseas. This flexible and trusting approach contributed to a stable, committed workforce and reinforced a culture where people felt valued, respected and supported.

Staff feedback reflected the strength of the provider's culture and leadership. Staff spoke with pride about their roles and described a supportive and caring workplace. One staff member told us, “I love every minute of my work." Another said, “Our boss is fair and kind and always there if we need anything." A further staff member explained, “We are like a family of carers that look out for not just our customers but one another too. This is due to [Name] style of management where we are made to feel valued and appreciated." These comments demonstrated a strong, positive culture that extended beyond people using the service and was evident throughout the organisation.

Leaders were exceptional in how they led the service, demonstrating high levels of compassion, credibility and inclusivity that consistently delivered outstanding outcomes for people and staff.

Leaders were highly visible and directly involved in all aspects of the service. The registered manager personally completed initial assessments, coordinated hospital discharges, introduced staff to people using the service and, where needed, delivered care themselves. This hands on leadership ensured care was safe, well coordinated and fully tailored from the outset, particularly for people with complex needs such as dementia, fluctuating mobility or catheter care.

Leadership was consistently described as compassionate and values led. Staff feedback and appraisal comments demonstrated that leaders understood the personal circumstances of their workforce and responded with empathy and flexibility. Examples included compassionate leave following bereavement, flexible working patterns to support mental health, and ongoing emotional support during return to work transitions.

External professionals consistently praised the leadership team for being approachable, responsive and collaborative. Occupational therapists, care coordinators and nurses reported timely communication, mutual respect and confidence in the service’s leadership. Leaders actively listened to clinical advice and embedded recommendations into care planning, resulting in safer care and improved outcomes for people.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people, relatives and staff knew they could speak up and be confident their voice would be heard. For example, when a concern was raised about compatibility with a member of staff, managers responded immediately and provided care themselves until a suitable resolution was reached. This ensured the person continued to receive consistent support and achieved an outcome they were happy with.

The service promoted openness through an established open-door culture, supported by regular supervision, appraisals and team meetings where staff were actively encouraged to raise concerns, share learning and make suggestions. Whistleblowing and complaints procedures were readily available and clearly outlined in policies, helping to ensure people and staff understood how to raise concerns.

Records demonstrated that concerns raised by people and their relatives were acted on promptly, with outcomes communicated and agreed.

The provider was exceptional in supporting workforce wellbeing, enabling staff, and promoting an inclusive and equitable working environment. This was embedded in the culture and consistently resulted in high staff morale, retention and sustained high-quality care delivery.

Leaders demonstrated a proactive and highly personalised approach to supporting staff wellbeing. They understood individual circumstances and responded flexibly, including providing compassionate leave following bereavement, adjusting working hours to support mental health, and enabling extended time off for family commitments abroad. Staff were also offered ongoing emotional support, regular check-ins and opportunities to reconnect gradually with work following absence. These approaches were not time-limited but adapted to individual need, reflecting a genuinely person-centred approach to workforce support.

Equality, diversity and inclusion were actively promoted through practical adjustments and inclusive practices. For example, where the office environment created physical barriers, alternative accessible locations such as village halls or community venues were arranged to ensure all staff could participate in meetings. The workforce reflected a wide range of ages, and leaders valued experience and diversity, avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach to roles or expectations.

Staff were enabled to deliver high-quality care through consistent training, supervision and meaningful involvement in the service. Structured one-to-one supervision, observed practice and regular team meetings ensured staff were confident, competent and supported in their roles. Training covered core skills and equality, diversity and inclusion, alongside opportunities for further development. Staff were encouraged to share ideas, raise concerns and contribute to service improvements, reinforcing a culture of inclusion and psychological safety.

The impact of this approach was evident in staff feedback and outcomes. Staff consistently described the service as supportive and inclusive, with one stating the organisation was a “kind family company” that understood work and home pressures and enabled a positive work–life balance. This culture contributed to high staff morale, strong retention and continuity of care, which directly benefited people using the service through consistent, relationship-based support.
 

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles and governance systems that enabled them to deliver good-quality, sustainable care and support. They used information about risk, performance and outcomes to maintain oversight, drive improvement and support safe care.

Effective governance arrangements provided oversight of quality, safety and service delivery. The management team met regularly to review performance, quality assurance information and the day-to-day operation of the service. Monthly audits of care plans, risk assessments, medicines management, staff supervision, incidents and accidents helped identify areas for improvement. Where concerns were identified, such as gaps in medication records, managers took action through additional supervision, observation and monitoring to improve practice and reduce risk. Incident and accident trends were analysed to identify learning and minimise the likelihood of recurrence.

The provider used an electronic governance and care management system to support oversight, strengthen communication and promote responsive care planning. The system recorded changes in people's needs, complaints, concerns, service updates, staff training and appraisals, enabling managers to monitor performance and respond promptly to emerging risks. The effectiveness of the system was reviewed regularly to ensure it continued to support positive outcomes for people and high-quality care delivery.

The provider demonstrated an understanding of their regulatory responsibilities by submitting statutory notifications when required and working with external agencies to support people's care. Sustainability was promoted through effective recruitment processes, competitive pay, paid travel time and manageable workloads. Clear management structures and defined leadership responsibilities supported accountability and the ongoing delivery of safe, effective and sustainable care.

The provider demonstrated exceptional partnership working, resulting in seamless, coordinated care and meaningful community inclusion for people using the service.

The service worked proactively and consistently with a wide range of health and social care professionals, including GPs, district nurses, occupational therapists, memory assessment teams and hospice services. Leaders played a central coordinating role, ensuring information was shared promptly and care was adjusted without delay when people’s needs changed. This approach directly supported hospital admission avoidance and enabled people to remain safely at home.

Partnership working went beyond functional coordination and was characterised by mutual trust and shared purpose. Professionals reported confidence in the service’s judgement and praised the team’s willingness to seek advice early, act on recommendations and maintain regular communication. This resulted in consistently positive outcomes for people with complex or deteriorating conditions.

The provider demonstrated an exceptional commitment to community inclusion. Staff actively supported people to reconnect with activities, relationships and routines that mattered to them, such as attending church, dementia hubs, exercise groups, cafés and local social events. Care staff used their knowledge of individuals’ life histories and interests to facilitate meaningful engagement, reduce isolation and enhance emotional wellbeing.

These partnerships were not incidental but clearly embedded within care planning and daily practice. Leaders ensured community involvement was recognised as a core outcome of care, not an optional extra, demonstrating outstanding practice in promoting people’s quality of life.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcomes and quality of life for people and contributed to safe and effective practice. Leaders promoted learning through regular training, staff meetings and supervision, using audit findings, supervision themes and feedback to identify areas for improvement, including dignity, moving and handling and record keeping. The provider demonstrated a commitment to learning from feedback and quality assurance activity. Annual quality assurance questionnaires, alongside compliments, concerns and informal feedback, were analysed and used to drive service improvements. For example, when feedback identified concerns about visit times, leaders spoke with people and their families, apologised where appropriate, reviewed rostering processes and introduced weekly oversight of schedules and customer feedback to improve people's experiences.

The provider promoted an inclusive approach to learning and development. Staff who could not access online training at home were supported to complete learning in the office, and training was adapted for staff with additional learning needs, including dyslexia. This included alternative learning formats, extended timescales and individual support, helping staff to complete training successfully and feel valued

The provider worked collaboratively with people, relatives, professionals and staff to shape service development. Feedback was actively sought and people could describe changes that had been made because of their views, demonstrating their involvement in improving the service. Leaders showed curiosity and adaptability by exploring digital solutions, including the use of AI tools and electronic systems to identify trends and themes from quality assurance activity. Innovation was also evident in the use of assistive technology and creative approaches to promote independence and safety, such as voice-activated reminders, key finder devices, Jelly Drops to support hydration, and the use of data systems to monitor trends such as falls and urinary tract infections. The provider also used virtual meetings to improve involvement for relatives who lived further away. While there was clear evidence of learning and improvement, systems to formally evaluate the long-term impact and effectiveness of changes were not yet fully developed