Greenfield View Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The registered manager told us that whilst they involved people as fully as possible in their care and treatment and consulted relatives, they were in the process of implementing a formal review process.

People and relatives confirmed they were involved and consulted about how care and treatment needs were met. Relatives told us they were confident their family members received care that was personalised to their individual needs. A relative said, “I would recommend the service to others. I feel confident my relative is cared for very well.” Another relative said, “I'm always consulted and involved in discussions and decisions. There have been occasions where they’ve had to go to the hospital due to a fall. Staff always contact me at the time. They moved my relation downstairs, which has been better.”

People’s care plans included important information about preferred routines and what was important to them. For example, a person’s care plan stated how the person’s religion was important to them and how they liked the staff to support them to pray and or listen to religious music. This person’s care records confirmed staff supported the person with their wishes. We saw examples of people’s morning and evening routines that were recorded to support staff in providing individualised care.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The management team told us how they had worked with the local authority and with an external consultant to further improve their service. A service improvement plan was in place to support the management team. While the management team responded to shortfalls identified during this inspection, further time was required for new and improved systems and processes to become fully embedded and sustained.

Staff worked with other professionals to make sure people’s needs were met. The service was supported by the local GP surgery and a clinician visited weekly. The registered manager was positive about this partnership and how well they worked together to support people to experience positive outcomes. Visiting external healthcare professionals were positive about how the staff worked with them to support people.

Overall, the staff team was stable, and this provided consistency and continuity of care and treatment.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The Accessible Information Standard (a legal requirement for social care providers to ensure information and communication is provided in a way that meets people’s needs and can be understood) was being met.

People’s communication needs had been assessed and planned for, which supported staff in understanding people’s individual communication needs and preferences. We observed staff communicating with people effectively, including talking with people in their first language.

Information was provided in ways that supported people’s understanding, including easy read, large-print, and alternative languages.

The provider had a data protection policy and procedure and understood their responsibilities of protecting people’s and staff’s confidential information.

The use of signage helped people to orient themselves.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

A suggestion box in the reception area enabled people, relatives, and visitors to provide feedback. Resident meetings were also arranged, enabling people to provide feedback on their experience of the service and make any suggestions. The provider analysed feedback received and produced a ‘You said, We did’ document, which they made available to inform people of actions taken to make improvements. Examples included changes to the menu and the environment.

The provider’s complaint policy had been made available to people and visitors and included in the service user guide. From the examples of complaints reviewed, these confirmed actions had been taken to investigate, and the outcome was shared with the complainant. This was completed in line with the provider’s complaint policy.

We observed staff involving people in discussions and decisions about their day-to-day care. Staff used effective communication such as speaking with people at eye level, speaking in the person’s first language, and ensuring they had understood the person’s response.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Reasonable adjustments had been made to ensure people had access to all parts of the service. For example, signage was well used to help people orient themselves around the service. The environment was spacious and free from hazards to help people with mobility needs and people living with dementia who walked with purpose.

The management team supported people to access services, including health and social care, for further assessments and support to ensure they received the care and support they needed. This included reviews of funding arrangements.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People were able to access care and support that met their individual care needs, routines and preferences. Staff understood people’s care needs and what was important to them.

Staff and the management team advocated on behalf of people to ensure they had access to health services when they needed. There were no language barriers, where English was not people’s first language, staff were available who could communicate in the person’s first and or preferred language.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The registered manager acknowledged that end-of-life care planning, including individuals’ wishes and funeral arrangements, was an area requiring further review and improvement. This information is vital to ensure people's future end-of-life preferences were clearly understood, respected, and appropriately planned for.

Care records confirmed examples of important information related to end-of-life wishes, such as Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR), Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT), and Advanced Decisions, which were in place and available to care staff.

The staff training matrix confirmed staff had received training in end-of-life care.