Greenhill Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People told us they felt safe, and staff were caring and friendly. Care plans and risk assessments were detailed with sufficient guidance in place to minimise and mitigate risks to people. For example, risk assessments had been carried out for mobility, falls, eating and drinking and skin care. Where indicated, monitoring charts were in place to ensure people received safe care and support. Staff supported people to manage risk whilst helping people maintain their independence. We found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had been recruited safely and received appropriate induction, training and support for their role. People were protected from the risk of infections. The service was clean, smelt fresh and was good decorative order. Staff were wearing PPE appropriately when needed.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us they felt safe, staff knew them well and knew how to support them. People were supported and encouraged to be as independent as possible, with measures in place to reduce known risks. For example, alarm mats were in place to alert staff where people had been identified as at risk of falling. One person told us staff had responded quickly and appropriately when they had fallen. People and their relatives where appropriate, were involved in regular reviews of their care as their needs changed.

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and their health needs and associated risks. Staff told us they regularly updated their care records and risk assessments and received feedback from the managers about accidents and incidents and what they could do to reduce the risk of harm. Managers carried out daily checks and weekly reviews of people’s care plans and monitoring records to ensure people were receiving sufficient to eat and drink and their care needs were being met.

Staff were attentive to people’s needs and knew how to support them safely. Equipment was in place to support safe handling and to protect people from the risk of skin damage. We observed staff using equipment safely during the visit. The environment was safe, and people were not at risk of harm from their environment.

People were protected from the risk of harm. Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and described the care people needed and how to mitigate risks. People were having their skin, food and fluid intake and weight monitored appropriately and there were robust systems in place to ensure they received the care they needed. The environment was safe. All appropriate checks were in place and service documents were up to date. The service was working to address issues raised by their recent fire assessment.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about staffing levels at the service. Some people felt there were enough staff but others thought they could do with more staff at certain times as they often had to wait to be supported. Comments included, “I don’t think that having two staff upstairs and two staff downstairs in the evenings is enough. Some nights there are only three staff. Daytimes it’s ok”, “Sometimes they can take a while to come”, “On the whole yes, they are times when they could do with more” and “They need more staff, it depends on the time of day.”

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service, worked well as a team and felt supported by the management. One staff member told us, “I have always said you get a lot of support from [manager’s names], and they are every approachable and if they could, they would give us anything. We have our meetings once a month and [Registered manager’s name] really cares and cares about us as people not just as employees.” Staff we spoke with felt there were enough staff on duty to care for people. Staff told us that they raised concerns with the management about staffing and as a result they have now employed a staff member to ‘float’ around the service to help where they are needed. Staff told us they were supported with staff meetings and had regular supervisions with their managers about their role.

We observed there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs safely. We did not observe people waiting to have their care needs met or hear call bells going unanswered for long periods of time. People look relaxed and happy in the presence of staff.

People were cared for by staff that were recruited safely. Prospective staff had undergone appropriate checks such as, checks of their character and Disclosure and Barring service (DBS) security checks carried out, prior to new staff starting in post. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff received induction that included shadow shifts and time to complete mandatory training which included practical training such as moving and handling. During the visit we saw there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. The service used a dependency tool to guide them on how many staff they should have on duty to meet people’s needs. The registered manager told us they were currently overstaffed according to their dependency tool.

People told us the service was always clean and staff kept their rooms clean and tidy. Comments included, “The bin are emptied daily, and towels are changed daily. It’s not dirty, it’s cleaned regularly. Every so often they do a deep clean of my room”, “Staff are always conscious of hygiene. It’s always clean” and “It’s clean, no residents are dirty either. I’d pick that up very quickly.” People told us that staff wore PPE when they supported them. One said, “They wear aprons and gloves when I’m showering. They are always respectful. They wash and help me with personal care. It’s all done with respect. You can have a good laugh with them.”

During the visit, staff were wearing face masks. The registered manager told us they were wearing face masks as a precaution to protect people as some staff members were off work with covid and locally covid in the community had increased. There were currently no people with covid in the service. Staff confirmed they received infection prevention and control (IPC) training and felt confident to support people with their personal care. Staff told us there was enough personal protective equipment (PPE) available for staff to use. Domestic staff told us they enjoyed their job and had a good team working together. They described their routines and how they kept the service clean and free from infections.

We observed the service was clean and free from odours. During the site visit we saw cleaning taking place and observed staff wiping tables in the dining room before serving lunch. PPE was available throughout the service, and we observed staff using PPE safely and appropriately.

Audits were in place to monitor the cleanliness of the service and ensure people were protected from infections. Cleaning records demonstrated what was being cleaned and the housekeeper told us they conducted daily cleaning checks, PPE checks and hand hygiene checks on staff to ensure processes were being followed and all areas were being cleaned. Managers at the service had oversight of infection prevention and control (IPC) and carried out regular audits and checks of all aspects of infection control. The services’ IPC policy was up to date.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.