Greenhill Park Residential Care Home

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.
The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance of the home.
 

This service scored 61 (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. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.
The registered manager described the home’s values and expectations for staff, explaining these were embedded through induction, team meetings and supervision. The registered manager described the homes values as treating everyone with respect, respecting everyone’s dignity and treating people with kindness. They also described the importance of supporting people to achieve their health and wellness goals.
Leaders were clear about how they expected care to be delivered and emphasised the importance of learning from mistakes. Staff confirmed the management team communicated expectations consistently and thoroughly during supervisions and team meetings.
The registered manager was open about areas requiring improvement and shared a centralised action plan which outlined the priorities for developing the service.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. Whilst the service was led by capable leaders who promoted an inclusive approach, the environmental hazards we identified had not been adequately addressed, indicating that leaders were not always sufficiently aware of issues affecting the quality and safety of the service.
They did not always utilise available support networks, external guidance and best practice resources to strengthen the quality and safety of care. As a result, governance arrangements were not always effective in identifying and addressing concerns, leading to inconsistent safety practices and increasing the risk that people’s needs were not met safely.
Staff did tell us the manager was approachable and supportive.
One staff member told us, “Communication between the management team is good and we share information and ideas.” Another told us, “the current management team is very supporting and very understanding, they are easy to talk to”.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.
Staff were able to describe the processes for raising concerns and understood their responsibility to speak up if they witnessed poor practice. They told us they knew who to approach within the home and were also aware of external routes to escalate concerns if they felt they were not being heard internally, such as the local authority and CQC.
Regular staff meetings were held, alongside daily handovers, which provided opportunities for staff to discuss any issues relating to people’s care or the general running of the home. Staff were also supported through regular supervisions and annual appraisals, which included space to reflect on practice, wellbeing and any concerns they wished to raise.
The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour. This requires providers to be open and transparent with people and their families when things go wrong, and to follow specific processes to ensure honesty and accountability. The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.
The service had an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policy in place to support fair and equitable recruitment and selection processes.
Staff had also completed training in equality and diversity, helping them understand their responsibilities in promoting an inclusive and respectful working environment.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.
Audits were not effective and did not identify areas for improvement or the shortfalls we found during our visit. For example, environmental concerns we found during our visit, had not been identified in recent audits. We reviewed several audits which were completed by members of the management team. This meant the provider did not maintain consistent oversight of the service and failed to recognise or address emerging risks. Although governance systems and processes were in place, they were not effective or followed consistently. As a result, the provider and management team did not always identify shortfalls or take timely action to address them. This limited their ability to ensure the service remained safe, well‑led and sustainable. Improvements were required to ensure governance arrangements were embedded in practice and used to drive continuous improvement. The manager informed us they would be reviewing the home’s action plan to ensure action was taken promptly to rectify concerns raised regarding the environment and also reviewing the oversight of PRN protocols.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.
Feedback received during the assessment process from partner agencies and stakeholders, indicated communication with leaders was not always productive, or conducive, to effective partnership working. For example, some health professionals felt the registered manager did not always take on board or accept feedback given. As a result of this these professionals went to the nominated individual to share their concerns so they could be addressed with the registered manager to enable improved working relationships, communication and working effectively together to ensure good positive outcomes for people.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research
The registered manager participated in internal company networks, sharing learning and practice guidance with the team. This supported the service to remain informed about current standards.
However, the registered manager was not yet involved in wider external provider forums, which limited opportunities to learn from broader sector practice. They expressed a clear interest in joining these networks and requested further information on how to become involved. This demonstrated a willingness to develop their knowledge and a proactive approach to strengthening the service through shared best practice, although this was still at an early stage and required further progress.