Greenfield Care

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 75 (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. People told us staff treated them as individuals and care staff who regularly supported them were familiar with their needs, preferences and daily routines. Staff demonstrated good awareness of people’s individual support needs and preferences. We found that in some case, care plans were not always strictly reviewed every 3 months as per the provider’s policy. We raised this with the registered manager who provided assurance that this would be done moving forward. He said with the introduction of a new digital care planning system, this would automatically alert them if any records needed updating. We were reassured with this response.

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. People told us staff understood their health and care needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had communication passports in place. These were in an easy read format and developed in collaboration with the speech and language therapy team within the learning disability team. A healthcare professional told us, “I feel [The managers] are all caring and person centred in their responses. They know the residents and their needs well and have passed on detailed information on this and ways the residents communicate, such as what certain gestures mean.”

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. People were aware that if they wished to complain they could speak to the staff or the registered manager. A complaints and whistleblowing poster was on display and there was a complaints policy in place too. The registered manger confirmed that no formal complaints had been received.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. External health and social care professionals told us the provider made sure their clients could access the care and support they needed when they needed it.

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 engaged and supported by staff to be included and have the same opportunity as others to receive the care and support of their choice. Staff understood people had a right to be treated equally and fairly, to receive care and support that met their specific needs. The manager confirmed they ensured people who requested to have gender specific care staff to provide their personal care was met.

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. There were end of life /advance plans in place which included people’s wishes about their end-of-life care needs. One person did not have any advance or end of life care plans in place, We discussed this with the registered manager, he told us that this was currently a very sensitive topic for the person as they had recently suffered a bereavement in the family with a close relative passing away. However, this had been identified in the providers quality assurance audits as a topic to be discussed once the grieving period had passed.