Greenacre Park

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We observed people were not always treated with compassion and dignity. Although the provider employed staff who planned and coordinated social events and activities, further work was needed to ensure activities were designed to meet people’s individual interests and needs. While there were systems in place to promote the well-being of staff and to enable them to carry out their roles, improvements were required to ensure people received person-centred care.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s experience was varied with some staff being kind and helpful. However, some relatives raised concerns and told us, “Some of the staff seem to be caring.” Another said, “I don’t find the staff caring, but they are friendly.”

The management team told us how they encouraged the staff to get to know the people living at the service, and actioning concerns when they arise.

Partners fed back concerns regarding the engagement of staff with people living at the service. However, 1 partner commented the feedback they had received from a person regarding staff had been positive and they were enjoying living at the service.

We observed staff frequently talking about people who lived at the service in front of staff members and other people. Interactions between staff and people was observed at times to be minimal. For example, staff members were observed talking to each other rather than the people sat in the communal areas with them.

People were not always treated as individuals. This is because staff were not skilled in responding to people’s unique needs, and care plans did not always give staff clear guidance. One relative told us, “[Relative] is left in bed most of the time, I think that it is convenient for them to leave [relative] in bed.”

Staff explained that some staff were less skilled than others. This impacted staff’s ability to understand people’s needs. One staff member said, “We need more [training], especially like more challenging behaviour to know how do we support them properly.”

We observed mixed interactions between staff and people. We observed some staff interacted on a personal level to support people, however, on other occasions staff provided support with very little communication.

The provider had an equality policy and staff had received training in equality and diversity. However, as detailed above staff told us they required additional training to meet people's needs.

We observed people going out for lunch during the assessment and a person told us how they had enjoyed going out for daily activities. However, consideration was not always given to those who were unable to engage in activities independently or with little support. One relative told us, “I know that they purchased some expensive equipment to aid him, but no-one knew how to use it, so it has been put away.”

Staff were able to explain to us how they supported people with their independence. One staff member said, “We give them choices and ask them what they want to do today and allow them their choices. We assess whether it is safe or not and then let them lead rather than doing it for them.”

There was limited visible information to show what activities or enrichment in support of people's well being and life experience were available for people. While there was a board present in communal areas it lacked information on what the activity included, it's location or the time it was planned to take place.

An effective system was not in place to demonstrate people and their relatives, where appropriate, were involved in their care. Although the provider employed staff who planned, and coordinated social events and activities, further work was needed to ensure activities were designed to meet people’s individual interests and needs.

People told us staff were there to support them with their needs. One person told us, "I don’t really need much help but im sure if I needed any help in those areas they would be forthcoming, they do offer me drinks and carry my plate."

We asked staff if they felt confident responding to people’s needs and we received a mixed response. One staff member told us, “We’re figuring it out as we go.” We were not assured when we asked a staff member about how they supported a person when showing signs of distress. Their description of how they would respond to the person’s needs was reactive rather than a proactive approach.

Staff interactions with people were often inconsistent. Some staff interacted positively and engaged well, whilst others focused on the task they were doing, such as writing up care notes rather than interacting with people.

Staff feedback was mostly positive about how the management team supported them in their roles. One staff member told us, “They [management] support me very well, they ask me if I’m ok.”

Staff had received supervision sessions and meetings with the management team. The provider encouraged positive improvements and recognised achievements of individual staff through employee of the month awards.