Greenacre Park

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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. However, this was an area for continued improvement following mixed feedback.

Not all people were able to participate fully in reviews of their care. There was also mixed feedback from relatives in relation to care reviews. Two said they had and 2 said they had not been involved. One relative said, “I have not seen any care plan review, but I will be asking to see one on my next visit.” However, another relative said, “I have seen a copy of [name] care plan. It is very detailed, and I think it factors in all their circumstances.”

Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and person centred. Staff confirmed these were a true reflection of people’s needs and risks and enabled them to support people effectively and safely according to their wishes. One member of staff told us, “Care plans are detailed and consider people’s life when they are undertaken. We are asked for our input to about their preferences and likes and dislikes.”

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.

Staff worked with other professionals to make sure people’s needs were met with timely and appropriate referrals made. People’s care records demonstrated the provider had worked with other care providers and health services. The GP visited weekly and healthcare professionals visited when people required treatment for specific conditions such as wound care.

The service had previously experienced a high turnover of staff. People and relatives told us they were confident in the regular experienced staff who knew people well. However, some reservation was made regarding agency staff. Agency staff reliance had decreased over the preceding months but was still being utilised at the time of the assessment. Managers told us they now had limited permanent vacancies to fill and agency staff were only utilised to cover shortages in staff resulting from sickness.

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

The provider was meeting the requirements of 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 understand).

People’s communication needs had been assessed and recorded. This supported staff to communicate with people based on their individual needs. We observed staff communicating with people effectively. For one person who required significant support with their communication, the provider was in the process of sourcing technology which would enable the person to communicate through movement of their eyes. This demonstrated an ongoing commitment to people to ensure providing and understanding information was paramount in people’s daily lives.

Information was provided in ways that supported people’s understanding. This included providing information in easy read, photos, large print and alternative languages.

The provider had a data protection policy and procedure and understood their responsibilities of storing confidential information securely.

The provider did not always make it easy for people or continually provide opportunity to share feedback and ideas which most relatives commented on. This was an area for further improvement. However, the provider did make it easy for people to raise complaints about care, treatment and support. A complaints policy was made available to people and visitors and displayed conspicuously around the service.

One relative said, “I have seen some leaflets, but I am going to say no to this [to share feedback and ideas]. I did see something last week about relatives' meetings, but I have not been aware of any or attended any.” A further relative said, “We have not received anything like a survey, but we feel that if we were to make a suggestion the Home would be quite receptive.”

Some relatives said they had experienced limited communication from the service. One said, “Yes. There is regular contact.” Another said, “No, I would say it is more a case of us discussing things with them as and when we visit. The manager has mentioned arranging a monthly meeting to discuss anything that we want to talk about.”

People and relatives told us they knew how to raise complaints if they had concerns and were confident action would be taken. One relative said, “Yes, I know what to do. Issues I have raised have been answered by the manager. However, that is not to say that I would have any problem making a structured complaint if I had to. I know the appropriate people to contact if I need to. I don't feel uncomfortable now with anything.” A further relative said, “I have never made a complaint, but I know the information is available on the website so it’s easy. My previous concerns were before the last CQC assessment. I knew then there were some problems, but I was also notified that the assessment had just taken place. From there, I spoke with management who assured me improvements would be made, and they have been.”

We observed staff involving people in discussions about their day-to-day care. Staff used effective communication according to people’s specific needs, such as speaking with people at eye level with a calm and unrushed approach ensuring they understood the person’s response.

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

Pre assessments completed before people moved into the home ensured adaptations or equipment was in place prior to people moving into the home. We saw staff had access to this equipment which they used to support the needs of people safely, for instance, adapted bathrooms, with a choice of bathing facilities, and bedrooms with equipment to support them with their needs in the confines of their private spaces.

Care plans considered people’s needs and required adjustments. These were recorded clearly guiding staff how to support people safely.

A choice of communal areas was available to people which they had ready access to. This meant people could choose between quieter areas of the service or areas where there was more social stimulation available. We observed staff supporting people around the service to ensure access to these areas was continually accessible.

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.

Managers and staff advocated on behalf of people to ensure they had access to health and community services that supported their well-being when they needed it. This included ensuring equity in meeting all people’s cultural and spiritual needs and provided meaningful opportunities for people to practise their faith both within the service and the local community.

People were 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.

People, where possible, were involved in formulating their end of life wishes. For example, for one person this included their wishes to be dressed in their choice of clothing, receive a visit from a person related to their faith and their funeral wishes.

Staff had made sure documents which were used by health professionals, such as out-of-hours doctors or emergency services, were readily available. These documents such as ‘Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment’ (ReSPECT) form also contained information about people’s end of life wishes.