Greenfields 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 Requires Improvement. 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 75 (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.

There was a clear commitment to continuous improvement, openness and shared learning across the service. Management had established systems that encouraged staff involvement and ensured learning was embedded into day-to-day practice. For example, themes identified through team meetings were carried through into supervision discussions, helping to reinforce expectations and improve practice across the home.

The service demonstrated a proactive approach to improvement through a wide range of audits, governance processes and quality monitoring systems. Areas such as health and safety, medicines, mealtimes, mental capacity, falls and the environment were regularly reviewed, with findings used to drive service improvements. We saw examples where learning from audits had been shared across the whole home rather than remaining within one unit, supporting consistency of practice.

There was evidence national guidance and best practice were used to influence the development of the service. The home had access to and referred to guidance including dementia strategy resources, pressure care guidance and learning disability training, helping staff remain informed and develop their knowledge.

Staff described a culture where ideas and feedback were welcomed. One member of staff told us, "Not every company will spend so much money. Whatever I ask for to complete the task, they will provide," A relative told us about the registered manager, "We have access to them anytime, they always pick up their phones." Management of the home invested in resources, development and open communication.

The registered manager had also introduced simple and practical approaches to support engagement with change, including presenting policy updates as key learning points rather than lengthy documents, helping staff understand and retain important information.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The registered manager was visible, approachable and demonstrated a commitment to creating a positive culture for people, relatives and staff. Feedback from staff, relatives and professionals consistently described the registered manager as supportive, responsive and focused on improving outcomes for people.

There was evidence of strong leadership oversight through regular audits, governance processes, quality monitoring and service reviews. Leaders used information from incidents, complaints, audits and feedback to identify improvements and drive change across the home. When concerns were identified during the inspection, leaders were open to feedback, acted promptly and focused on finding solutions.

Staff described leaders as supportive and invested in their development. One staff member told us, "[Person] wouldn't just do it because he has to tick the box, [Person] puts all their heart in it," whilst another staff member told us the registered manager was, "Not my boss, but my guardian angel," when reflecting on the support they received during a difficult period in their personal life.

The registered manager promoted inclusion by involving people, relatives and staff in decisions about the service. Evidence showed consultation took place regarding environmental improvements, service developments and care delivery. Staff were encouraged to contribute ideas and feedback, creating a culture where people felt valued and able to influence change.

Relatives all spoke positively about leadership within the home. One relative described the registered manager as "A good manager and respected by staff”. Another relative told us staff and management were "Very helpful" when questions or concerns were raised.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The service promoted an open culture where people, relatives and staff felt able to raise concerns, provide feedback and challenge practice. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of whistleblowing procedures and were able to describe how they would escalate concerns both within the organisation and to external agencies if required.

Staff told us they felt listened to and supported by the registered manager. One staff member said they would, "Report to [Registered manager], go above their head if needed," and was able to describe other routes for escalating concerns, demonstrating confidence in the systems available. One staff member told us, "I never felt the senior management to be unapproachable," highlighting a culture where speaking up was encouraged. One relative told us, “We have spoken to the registered manager and they respond very quickly.”

Relatives we spoke with also described management as accessible and responsive. One relative told us, "They are very helpful and tell me exactly what happened," whilst another said, "I would approach the management." Feedback from relatives indicated they felt comfortable questioning aspects of care and were confident they would receive a response.

The service actively sought feedback through surveys, family meetings, complaints processes and day-to-day conversations. We saw evidence concerns and suggestions were discussed, investigated and used to support service improvements.

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 registered manager promoted an inclusive culture where people were supported by a diverse workforce and staff were treated fairly and with respect. Recruitment processes were robust and supported the employment of staff from a range of backgrounds, skills and experiences. Staff files evidenced appropriate pre-employment checks, right to work verification and equal access to employment opportunities.

The provider demonstrated a commitment to inclusion through training and organisational values. Guidance relating to equality, diversity and inclusion was available throughout the service and there was visible promotion of LGBTQ+ awareness within the home.

Staff described a culture where they felt accepted, valued and able to be themselves. One member of staff told us, "Coverage Care who is the provider, is very open," and another staff member told us, "We all work well, not just on Bluebell unit but everyone in the home." Teamwork and mutual respect were encouraged across different teams and departments.

The registered manager and provider invested in staff wellbeing and professional development regardless of role. Opportunities for progression were evident, including examples of staff developing their careers within the organisation and being supported to gain further qualifications. Staff also had access to wellbeing support and regular contact with managers and senior leaders.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The service had established and embedded governance systems that provided management of the home with oversight of quality, safety and performance. A comprehensive programme of audits covered areas including medicines, health and safety, infection prevention and control, mealtime experiences, care planning, mental capacity, controlled drugs and environmental safety. These were used to identify issues, monitor trends and drive improvements across the service. Some audits and action plans did not always evidence when actions had been completed or formally closed.

The registered manager demonstrated good oversight of the service through regular monitoring, quality reviews and action planning. There was evidence of learning from audits, incidents, and complaints, and feedback was used to improve practice. For example, medicines auditing had identified a potential error before it impacted on people, and findings from audits were routinely discussed with staff to promote learning and accountability.

However, some audits and action plans had not always been fully signed off or evidenced as completed. Whilst this did not prevent learning from taking place, clearer recording of completed actions would further strengthen governance and provide assurance improvements had been fully embedded

Staff spoke positively about leadership and management oversight. One member of staff told us, "Everything runs smoothly, no one is rushed," another staff member told us, "Very organised with the staff allocations and overall." There were structured systems and processes in place to support safe care delivery.

Governance systems extended beyond auditing. Management utilised electronic care systems to monitor health outcomes, incidents, accidents, safeguarding concerns, pressure damage, care routines and deteriorating health. Real-time alerts supported oversight of key care tasks such as repositioning, oral care and hydration, helping managers identify gaps and respond promptly where required.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The service worked in partnership with a wide range of healthcare professionals and community organisations to support people's health, wellbeing and quality of life. Records evidenced timely referrals and ongoing professional involvement to help people achieve positive outcomes.

The home maintained links with the local community to support people's social wellbeing and maintain meaningful connections. People were supported to attend outings and community activities, and local church representatives regularly visited the home. Following a recent bereavement, the service worked closely with a local priest to support the person's wishes and those important to them.

There was evidence relatives were viewed as partners in care. Relatives told us they were kept informed of changes and involved in healthcare decisions.

Management demonstrated partnership working with people and relatives when developing the service.

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 service showed a commitment to continuous learning and improvement. Management used information from audits, incidents, complaints, feedback and professional reviews to identify opportunities to enhance care and improve outcomes for people. Learning was shared through team meetings, supervision and competency assessments, helping to embed improvements across the service.

The service actively reflected on practice and adapted systems where improvements were identified. For example, management had strengthened falls reporting processes, developed themed supervision discussions from issues identified through governance processes, and adapted how policy updates were shared to improve staff understanding and engagement.
Staff we spoke with spoke positively about the home's approach to improvement. One member of staff said, "We are constantly improving," another staff member told us the home was consistently, "A learning culture." Staff were encouraged to develop their skills, share ideas and contribute to service development.

The registered manager was receptive to external feedback and assessment findings. Throughout the assessment, the management of the home responded openly to challenge, demonstrated reflection and took action where improvements were identified. This showed a culture where learning was viewed as an opportunity to enhance people's experiences rather than simply a compliance exercise.