- Care home
Greenfield View Care Home
Assessment report published 21 October 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of onsite inspection 10 and 11 September 2025. Greenfield View Care Home is a residential care home without nursing, accommodating up to 30 people. The service supports older people and younger adults, including individuals living with dementia and/or mental health needs. This was the provider’s first rated inspection since registration. At the time of the inspection, 27 people were living at the service.
During the inspection, we identified a breach of regulation concerning the governance of the service. Earlier in the year, the provider had received support from the local authority’s quality team and had engaged a consultant to assist them to further develop the service. A service improvement plan was in place, outlining actions required to enhance quality and safety. However, we were not sufficiently assured that internal systems and processes were fully effective, and further time was needed to embed and sustain improvements.
Risks associated with people’s care and treatment had not been consistently assessed or planned for. While care plans offered staff guidance on individuals’ needs, they did not consistently reflect current care and treatment. However, staff demonstrated good knowledge, and feedback from external professionals was positive regarding staff’s awareness, understanding, and competency. This indicated that the issue was primarily a recording problem.
The provider’s learning culture required improvement. Further action was needed to ensure that accidents and incidents were analysed for themes, patterns, and learning opportunities, and that findings were effectively shared with staff. The provider was in the process of implementing new procedures.
Steps were being taken to recruit additional staff. We identified that staff deployment required further review to ensure people received timely care and support, as well as opportunities to regularly engage in meaningful activities.
Medicines management required improvement to ensure adherence to best practice guidance and internal policies and procedures. People were supported to access health services when required, and a weekly ward round was completed by a clinician from the local GP surgery.
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in protecting people from abuse and avoidable harm. People and their relatives were involved in discussions and decisions about how care needs were met.
The provider had processes to manage infection prevention and control. Overall, the service was clean and hygienic, and additional domestic staff were being employed to ensure standards were maintained as occupancy increased.
People were offered a choice of meals and drinks, and their religious and cultural dietary needs and preferences were assessed and accommodated. However, some concerns were observed in relation to meeting hydration needs.
Where restrictions were placed on individuals’ liberty, these were applied lawfully. Where people lacked mental capacity to consent to their care and treatment, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Staff were kind, caring, and respectful towards the people in their care, including being responsive to individual care needs. However, people’s mealtime experience identified that dignity and respect were sometimes compromised.
People’s communication needs had been assessed and planned for. Information was provided in various formats to meet the needs of individuals. People, relatives, and visitors were given opportunities to share their experiences of the service.
Staff were positive about working at the service. They confirmed they received ongoing training and support to enable them to safely and effectively meet people’s individual care needs
People's experience of this service
We gathered feedback from individuals living at the service, visiting relatives, and additional family members who were spoken to off-site. Overall, responses were positive regarding the care and treatment provided.
People told us they received safe care from staff who knew them well and understood their individual needs. One person said, “The staff explain things to me to keep me safe.” Relatives praised the staff's communication, noting that they were kept informed of accidents, incidents, and changes to their relation’s care needs.
Relatives confirmed that concerns and complaints were addressed promptly. One relative said, “If anything goes wrong, they [staff] phone me, and if I have any problems I can talk to the manager straight away and it gets sorted.”
While people generally felt that staffing levels were sufficient, some concerns were raised about consistency, particularly during evenings and weekends. One relative commented, “I would describe the staff as excellent, but I feel they are rushed, resulting in people having to wait at times for assistance.”
People confirmed they were supported with their health needs, including access to GPs and other healthcare professionals when required.
Feedback on meals and drinks was positive. People felt they had enough food and fluids, with the choice described as “good.” A relative said, “There’s plenty and everything’s fresh.”
People and relatives consistently praised the caring nature of staff, highlighting how well staff understood individual preferences and routines.
Feedback on activities was mixed. Some people reported feeling bored due to limited opportunities. Relatives expressed concern that activities did not always reflect their family members’ hobbies and interests.
People and relatives were positive about the service’s leadership. The registered manager and provider were known to those living at the service and to their relatives and were described as being visible and approachable.