Greenways Rest Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to risks related to the security of the home and the management of medicines. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 69 (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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

We observed lessons had been learned from a safety incident. Exits were secure and processes were in place to lessen the risk of people who may be vulnerable leaving the home unnoticed or without suitable support. Since we last visited the registered manager had improved processes around the management of medicines.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

We were assured there was an effective admissions process in place. We observed a person moving into the home. The registered manager and staff were waiting on their arrival. They welcomed them into the home and prioritised their time to ensure all documentation was in place to ensure a safe move into their new home. One person described the staff as, “Kind.” They shared that staff sat with them when they were finding the transition into the home difficult.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

There were appropriate policies and procedures, and staff completed safeguarding training. The contact details for the Lancashire Safeguarding Authorities were displayed in the home. People were supported by staff who knew why and how to raise safeguarding concerns. Staff told us they would report concerns to the registered manager, Care Quality Commission and local authorities if they had concerns.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Staff were trained to meet people’s needs. People were confident staff knew how to support them and mitigate any risks. One person told us they occasionally use a hoist, and they had been assessed for this. They said they felt safe when staff were using it.

Care plans were regularly reviewed and identified what support people required. Staff said care plans and risk assessments gave them enough guidance on how to support people safely.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure facilities supported the delivery of safe care.

There were effective fire safety procedures in place. However, a recommendation from a fire safety expert had not been addressed in a timely manner. This was scheduled to be completed shortly after our visit.

Staff had good knowledge of fire safety procedures, and every person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP). The purpose of a PEEP is to ensure that all people can evacuate the building safely and promptly in the event of an emergency, regardless of their level of mobility or other health conditions. Equipment was available and well maintained to meet people’s needs.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

As part of our assessment, we observed the quality of care experienced by people who may not be able to describe this themselves. We did this using the short observational framework for inspection (SOFI), informally spending time in all areas of the home and gathering feedback from people who could share their views and relatives. We did not have any concerns related to staffing levels or deployment. There were appropriate staffing levels and skill mix to make sure people receive consistently safe, good quality care that met their needs. One person told us they get help when they need and staffing was sufficient.

There were safe recruitment practices to make sure that all staff, were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

There were some areas of the home that required updating or would benefit from a deep clean to promote effective management of infection prevention. The provider was aware of this and was working towards refurbishing the home.

Greenways Rest Home had a food hygiene rating of 5. This meant food hygiene standards were very good.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People had protocols in place to guide staff on when to administer ‘as and when required’ medicines. People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff had good knowledge of people’s medicines and understood processes around ordering, recording and storage of medicines.

We observed medicines were administered following best practice guidance, and staff gave people time and suitable oversight. We saw there was appropriate arrangements for the safe management of controlled drugs. Controlled drugs are drugs that are subject to high levels of regulation because of government decisions about those drugs that are especially addictive and harmful.