Greenways Live-In Care Ltd

Updated 2 January 2026

Date of assessment: 22 January to 20 February 2026.

Greenways Live-In Care Ltd provides care and support to people living in their own homes. Not everyone received a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’ which is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating.

This assessment included a site visit to the office location. At the time of the assessment there were 23 people receiving care and support. This was the first assessment of the service since it registered with CQC. We reviewed all key questions and quality statements.

Medicines were not always managed safely. Risks relating to medicines were not consistently assessed, and oversight of the electronic medicine administration system was not effective. One person’s medicines administration record contained incorrect information, which could have placed them at risk. In addition, some care plans and risk assessments did not fully address known risks. The provider took prompt action to address these issues, and there was no evidence anyone had been harmed. However, there were effective safeguarding processes. Staff were trained and understood their responsibilities in raising safeguarding concerns.

Care plans included personalised guidance, to help staff support people safely and in ways that promoted independence.

Staff told us they felt supported by the provider and received training, induction and supervision.

Health and social care partners spoke positively about the service. They said the service communicates well, works collaboratively with partner organisations, and responds quickly to requests and recommendations. Staff were described as professional, person- centred and responsive, including in complex cases.

We identified 2 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance.

There was a lack of consistent oversight of risks to the service and auditing processes were not always effective in identifying shortfalls. Recruitment processes were not always followed consistently to ensure safe staffing. For example, the provider did not always check for gaps in employment history for newly recruited staff. Staff competencies were not always checked by the provider to ensure staff were supporting people safely.

Updated 2 January 2026

People and their relatives were generally happy with the service they received. They told us they felt their relative was safe, and staff were kind and caring. One relative said, “The carers are very respectful, all of them treat the family and [person] so well.” Another relative said, “All the staff are lovely and [Staff name], is very good with [person).

Most relatives said communication with the service was good. However, 1 relative said the service was slow to respond to communication sometimes.

Two out of the 8 relatives we spoke with raised concerns about staff training and induction, stating they did not feel staff were always well prepared for their roles. One relative told us they did not always receive consistent staff, which they said was exhausting for their family member. Another relative explained the service was only able to provide male carers, and as a result their family member had refused personal care because they preferred support from female carers. The provider said there had been occasions when they have needed to send male carers to people due to staffing constraints.