Greenways Live-In Care Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 61 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Leaders told us they aimed to give the best care to people. The manager Said’ “We employ people who have a caring quality and are kind. We talk about caring and kindness during supervisions and meetings.” Leaders sought feedback from people and their relatives. Relatives said staff were caring, kind and helpful.

Operational leadership did not always result in effective management or good governance of the service. However, leaders were open about where improvements were needed. The provider explained they had been without a full management structure for a period of time due to staff turnover and acknowledged this had affected the quality and consistency of documentation.

Staff felt supported by the provider and manager. One staff member said, “If the car breaks down. They [management] will quickly try to assist, recommend a garage…I feel supported, I can’t think of anything I have requested and been denied.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider confirmed they encourage staff to raise concerns with them. They said, “We try to encourage transparency, staff know that unless there is a safeguarding they can say something to us and we will keep this confidential. Staff can call any of us in confidence.” Staff confirmed they were listened to. One staff member said, “They are all very supportive, they listen to carers and immediately provide help.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Leaders supported staff with their individual religion, culture and circumstances.

One staff member said, “my line manager advised me I can take time off for any religious reasons, I am welcome, they respect ethnicity and religion.”

The provider did not have effective governance arrangements to ensure clear roles, responsibilities and systems of accountability. Governance processes did not consistently support the provider to identify risks, monitor performance or use information about outcomes to drive improvement. As a result, learning was not always identified or acted upon in a timely way.

The provider had developed a service improvement plan; however, this was not fully effective. It had not identified several issues we found during the inspection, including gaps in medicine records, inconsistencies in care documentation, shortfalls in staff competency checks, and missing information in staff employment files. These shortfalls in governance increased the risk of people not receiving safe or well-coordinated care. For example, inaccurate care plans or incomplete recruitment records could affect the quality and safety of support provided.

Leaders told us they had been short-staffed at management level, which had affected their ability to maintain effective oversight. They said they had now recruited a deputy manager and a manager to strengthen leadership and improve governance arrangements.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. Leaders shared an example of how they had worked in partnership with health professionals to support a person with a safe discharge from hospital back into the community. One health professional told us the service worked well in partnership with others to support people with complex needs. They told us the manager maintained clear and proactive communication, including regular email updates, and willingly attended multi-agency meetings with the family and adult social care. This helped ensure a consistent, coordinated approach to managing risks and meeting the person’s needs.

Learning and improvement were not embedded into the service. There was no evidence that the provider consistently used their audits or feedback to drive change. For example, existing audits were not effective, and electronic systems available were not being used to monitor quality or identify where improvements were needed. This meant the service could not reliably learn from issues or prevent them from recurring.

However, leaders told us they supported staff to develop their knowledge and skills through vocational training; they explained they used a flexible rota system to enable staff to access learning opportunities and provided additional flexibility when staff needed time to prepare for or complete exams. This helped ensure staff were confident and competent in their roles.

Leaders described how they had worked collaboratively with the local authority to address areas for improvement that had been identified. This demonstrated openness to external scrutiny and a commitment to strengthening practice.

They also told us they engaged with local care forums to stay up to date with current information, emerging guidance and best practice. This supported ongoing improvement and helped ensure care remained in line with current practice.