Greystoke Manor

Updated 12 May 2026

Date of assessment 26 May – 10 June 2026. Greystoke Manor is a residential care home providing support to people with a variety of health conditions, including frailty of old age and dementia. This assessment was undertaken due to an aged rating.

Staff were not always deployed to ensure people received support in a timely manner. Pre-employment checks were not always completed or documented to ensure new staff had relevant experience to undertake their roles or were of good character. People and their relatives expressed concerns about the quantity and standard of the food on offer. All these issues had been acknowledged by the provider with a view to improvements being made. A range of audits was in place, but had not identified the concerns found at this inspection.

There was a culture of learning when accidents or incidents occurred. Safe systems ensured consistent and co-ordinated care when people moved between services. Safeguarding requirements were met and any instances of abuse or alleged abuse were notified appropriately to the local authority and the Commission. People’s risks were assessed and managed safely, and the home provided a safe, clean environment. Staff completed a range of training in line with their roles, and had regular supervision meetings.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home, and a range of monitoring tools was used to support the care they received from staff. A variety of health and social care professionals supported people to live healthier lives, and to achieve good outcomes. There were some issues with the quality of food on offer, but with a new chef being recently appointed, the management team were hopeful of improvements. People’s consent to care was routinely sought by staff.

People were cared for by staff who were kind and knew them well; their dignity was respected. People were encouraged with their independence, and a range of activities supported this. The home supported staff with their wellbeing and regular supervisions, enabling staff to make suggestions or voice any concerns.

People received personalised care that catered for their likes, dislikes and preferences. Care plans provided information for staff about how people wished to be cared for. People’s wishes were sought before they reached the end of their lives, and care plans documented these.

The culture of the home shaped the environment, the quality of care and daily life for people and staff. A positive culture had been developed that was focused on person-centred care and giving people dignity and choice on what was important to them.

Updated 12 May 2026

People felt safe living at Greystoke Manor. One person said, “On the whole it’s very good. The staff are very caring and it’s very nice. It’s not home, but it’s not bad.” Staff were not always deployed to ensure people’s needs were met promptly. A relative told us, “They probably could do with a few more. Sometimes I feel that some people are waiting to go to the toilet for a while because staff are busy doing other things, but I am really happy my mum is in that home. She has settled in and the staff are really friendly.” Positive feedback was given regarding the training of staff, and the cleanliness of the home. People received their medicines as prescribed.

People and their relatives were involved in assessments before they came to live at Greystoke Manor, but were not routinely involved in reviewing their care thereafter. There were plans to improve this and information was to be sent out to people and their relatives explaining what a care plan was, and how they could be involved. People were supported with their healthcare needs through access to a range of healthcare professionals. Feedback about the food on offer was overall quite negative. A relative said, “Food is a difficult question to answer. When my mum first stayed there we went for lunch and it wasn’t good at all. Mum says she doesn’t like the food. We’re going to test the food out, stay for lunch and see what it’s like. The vegetables then were dreadful, not fresh. There wasn’t much choice for lunch or tea.”

We observed people did not always receive timely assistance from staff when they needed it. Some people had to wait for their lunchtime meal, despite staggered meal times. Staff did not always have a visible presence throughout the day. One person told us, “The carers are good, they’re really lovely people. My only criticism is they sometimes say they will come back in a minute, but then they don’t come back. It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen. I think the biggest improvement would be if they had more staff.”

People told us staff were caring and kind and looked after them well. A range of activities was organised for people, with external entertainers also visiting the home. One person said, “I go to all the activities. They have tai chi, sitting down, and gentle exercises. People come in and sing and play instruments. It’s varied and interesting. They lay on things for everyone.” People were supported with their independence. One person said, “I had a nasty fall; it was no-one’s fault. I lost my mobility, but they’re going to help me again to get it back. That’s what I want.”

People received personalised care from staff who knew them well; their diverse needs were acknowledged and catered for. If people had any complaints, they could talk to staff and their concerns would be taken seriously. One person said, “I would write to the owner.”

People were positive about the way the home was managed, and the care and support they received. They knew who the registered manager was and residents’ meetings enabled them to make any suggestions or comments. One person said, “They do have meetings and sometimes things are taken note of and sometimes not. They could be organised a bit better. Some people don’t say anything at the meetings.”