You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

The inspection took place on 30 August and 13 September 2017and was unannounced. At our last inspection on15 September 2016, we found that there were not always sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s support needs and the current activity programme required further development to incorporate people’s individual interests and hobbies. Following the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to tell us how they would make the required improvements to meet the legal requirements.

At this inspection we found that the service had improved. People told us that there were always enough staff available to support them and we found that the activity programme had been further improved to incorporate a wide range of interesting social and recreational pastimes.

Greenbanks provides personal care for up to 66 older people. It does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection 64 people were living at the home. Some people at the home were unable to verbally communicate with us so we observed how care and support was provided in communal areas such as the lounge and dining area.

There was a manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us that they felt safe, happy and well looked after at the home. Staff received training in how to safeguard people from abuse and knew how to report concerns, both internally and externally. Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed to help ensure that all staff were suitably qualified and experienced. Arrangements were in place to help ensure there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff available at all times to meet people’s individual needs.

Plans and guidance had been drawn up to help staff deal with unforeseen events and emergencies. The environment and equipment used were regularly checked and well maintained to help keep people safe. Trained staff helped people to take their medicines safely and at the right time. Identified and potential risks to people’s health and well-being were reviewed and managed effectively.

Relatives and healthcare professionals were positive about the skills, experience and abilities of staff who worked at the home. They received training and refresher updates relevant to their roles and had regular supervision meetings to discuss and review their development and performance.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health and social care professionals when necessary. They were provided with a healthy balanced diet that met their individual needs.

Staff made efforts to ascertain people’s wishes and obtain their verbal consent before providing personal care and support, which they did in a kind and compassionate way. Information about local advocacy services was available to help people and their family access independent advice or guidance.

Staff had developed positive and caring relationships with the people they cared for and clearly knew them well. People were involved in the planning, delivery and reviews of the care and support provided. The confidentiality of information held about people’s medical and personal histories was securely maintained throughout the home.

Care was provided in a way that promoted people’s dignity and respected their privacy. People received personalised care and support that met their needs and took account of their preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s background histories, routines and personal circumstances.

People were supported to pursue social interests and take part in meaningful activities relevant to their needs, both at the home and in the wider community. They felt that staff li

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

The service was safe.

People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise and report abuse.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people`s needs safely at all times.

Safe recruitment processes were followed.

People`s medicines were administered by staff who were trained and knew people well.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received induction training and refresher training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet peoples` needs effectively.

Peoples’ consent and agreement was obtained and staff were aware of the requirements in relation to MCA/DoLS.

People were supported to eat a healthy balanced diet and there was a range of food and drinks available for people to choose.

Peoples health was monitored to ensure their physical health and wellbeing were maintained.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

The service was caring.

People had developed positive relationships with staff, which were based on mutual respect and trust.

Staff involved people and or relatives in planning and reviewing their care.

Peoples` dignity and privacy was maintained and respected by staff.

Personal information was kept secure and confidential.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

The service was responsive.

The care people received was personalised for their needs and reflected their preferences.

People had access to the community and were able to participate in a range of individual or group activities.

People were able to raise concerns and complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

The service was well led.

People were positive about the manager and the leadership in the home.

The manager promoted an open and transparent culture at the home.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

The manager demonstrated a very good knowledge and understanding of people’s needs.