You are here

Archived: Greycliffe Manor Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 4 October 2017

The inspection took place on the 5 and 6 September 2017 and the first day was unannounced. At the last inspection on the 24 May and 1 June 2016, we found concerns in relation to, medicines management, the management of risk, people’s consent to care and treatment, care planning, and the quality auditing of the service. We found the service was in breach of regulations and rated the service as requiring improvement overall. Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan telling us how they would address these concerns and by when. At this inspection we found action had been taken and improvements had been made in all of these areas.

Greycliffe Manor is a care home, which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 25 people living with dementia and other physical health needs. People who lived at the home received nursing care from the local community health teams. At the time of the inspection 25 people were using the service. Two people were staying for a short period of respite care. The service also had one person who was staying for day-care, but did not live at the service.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The provider and registered manager had taken action to address concerns found at the last inspection. Quality auditing systems had been improved to help ensure any shortfalls in the service were identified and addressed in a timely manner. For example, records relating to people’s medicines and support arrangements had improved and audits were in place to help ensure these improvements were maintained. Improvements had been made in relation to care planning and the registered manager had liaised with the mental health services to ensure practices in relation to people’s behaviour was appropriate and safe. The registered manager had attended updated Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safegaurds (DoL) training and had used this knowledge to train the staff team, and to ensure any practice to restrict people of their liberty was legal and safe.

Staff understood their role with regards to ensuring people’s human rights were promoted and respected. Staff asked for people’s consent before providing care, and involved significant others when people lacked the capacity to make complex decisions about their lifestyle and care arrangements. Staff had undertaken training on safeguarding adults from abuse, they displayed a good knowledge of how to report any concerns and described what action they would take to protect people from harm.

During the inspection people and staff were relaxed. There was a happy, calm and pleasant atmosphere. Staff attended to tasks and people’s needs promptly, but also allowed themselves time to sit with people for a chat and to provide company. This unrushed way of working, along with gentle old time music playing in the background, helped to create a positive and homely environment for people to live in.

We observed people talking to each other in a friendly way. Visitors were welcomed with a warm smile from staff and offered a cup of tea. Meal times were unrushed and people were offered a glass of wine or sherry, which they were clearly used to and enjoyed. Staff said they enjoyed working in the home and spoke compassionately and respectfully about the people they supported. People told us their privacy and dignity was respected.

People and relatives told us they felt Greycliffe Manor was a safe place to live. People’s risks were known, monitored and managed well. Staff had a good understanding of risks associated with people’s behaviours and records relating to specific people had improved to help ensure behaviour that

Inspection areas



Updated 4 October 2017

The service was safe.

People�s risks were assessed and managed appropriately to keep them safe.

People were protected by safe and appropriate systems for handling and administering medicines.

People were protected from harm. Staff had a good understanding of how to recognise and report any signs of abuse, and appropriate action was taken to protect people.

There were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to meet people�s needs and to keep them safe.

People were protected by thorough recruitment practices. Safety checks helped ensure people were only supported by staff that were considered safe and suitable to work with them.



Updated 4 October 2017

The service was effective.

People were cared for by staff who undertook appropriate training to meet their needs.

People were assessed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as required. Staff asked for people�s consent before providing care and respected their response.

People were supported to have their health and dietary needs met.



Updated 4 October 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who knew them well. People were treated with kindness and compassion.

People�s privacy, dignity and independence was promoted and maintained.

People were spoken to in an appropriate manner and in a way they could understand.

People�s relatives were welcomed into the home and friendships were supported and encouraged.



Updated 4 October 2017

The service was responsive.

Care records were personalised and met people�s individual needs.

People�s preferences about how they wanted to be supported were known and respected by staff.

People were able to partake in a range of activities to keep them stimulated and to occupy their time in a meaningful way.

People�s opinions mattered and they knew how to raise concerns.



Updated 4 October 2017

The service was well-led.

There was an open, friendly culture. Staff were motivated to develop and provide quality care for people.

Quality monitoring systems had much improved, which helped ensure standards of care were raised and maintained.

People, staff, visitors and other agencies were encouraged to make comments and suggestions about what mattered to them at the service.