Greenwood Court Care and Nursing Home

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 reviewed all 5 quality statements under this key question: kindness; compassion and dignity; treating people as individuals; independence; choice and control; responding to people’s immediate needs and workforce well-being and enablement. There were not always enough staff available to listen and attend to people’s immediate needs, or to minimise their concerns or distress. However, we observed staff respecting people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged people to remain independent. People were supported by a caring staff group who respected their choices and preferences. Staff felt supported by their leaders and colleagues and were able to contribute to decision making.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives told us staff treated them with kindness, compassion and dignity. Comments included, “Staff are very kind and caring and if I need anything they will get it for me,” “Staff are very kind and caring towards me.” And “Staff are lovely and kind to [person].”

Staff knew and understood people. Comments included, “I love working as a care assistant, we all work as a family here,” “I love my job, I love caring for the people and I feel we are one big happy family.” And “I observe staff and listen; I have had carers who were abrupt, and I have challenged them. Our training teaches us to always treat people with dignity and respect.” The manager told us, “When I walk around, I observe staff interaction, wait for staff to knock on doors, are they introducing themselves.”

We spoke to a visiting health professional who told us, “The care is pretty good here, staff are attentive and professional.”

During our on-site assessment we observed staff were caring, appeared warm, and friendly and treated both people and their relatives with dignity and respect. People appeared happy, relaxed and calm in their environment.

People’s individual needs were assessed, and the information used to shape their own personalised care plan. People’s needs and preferences were understood, this was reflected in the care, treatment and support they received.

Staff explained to us how they respected people’s individuality, wishes and preferences. A member of staff told us, “We do activities for people living downstairs and then go upstairs for smaller groups or for people who are unable to come down. Some people prefer to have a one-to-one activity in their room whatever people prefer.” Staff treated people as individuals considering their strengths, abilities, aspirations, protected characteristics, and cultural needs.

People’s individual needs and preferences were understood, and these were reflected in their care and support they received.

People’s care plans reflected their individuality. They were respectful of people’s personal, cultural, and religious needs, ensuring they were understood and met.

Overall people we spoke to told us staff supported them to have choice and control over their own care and were encouraged to make decisions about how their support was provided. One person told us, “I can dress myself and staff encourage me to do it myself but are there if I need help.”

The manager told us, “We ensure people’s care plans are person centred with the person or relative's involvement. People are asked questions when they are resident of the day and it is about finding out about whether people are left-handed, right-handed, how they prefer to do things so all care plans are not generic but written about the persons individual needs and how they would like to be supported.”

We observed people had access to a range of activities throughout the day and people were complimentary about them. People were supported to maintain relationships with those who were important to them. We observed people using several types of technology to keep themselves in touch with others.

The provider had systems in place to ensure people received care which promoted their independence, choice and control. People’s care plans reflected what they could manage independently and what support they may require in other areas of their daily lives. For example, one person’s care plan read, “Support [person] using show and explain method, as they are able to pick out an outfit of their choice.”

People and relatives, we spoke with told us they knew how to raise a concern or complaint. People we spoke with told us they had no complaints and were quite happy. However, we received mixed feedback from relatives. Comments included, “We speak to [person] a lot and visit, [person] would let us know if they were not happy or had any complaints,” and “I sent an email 2 weeks ago to the manager. I have not received any response. I was disappointed not to receive a response.”

The manager told us they had a system in place to ensure all feedback, concerns or complaints were acted on. This included learning lessons when things went wrong. Events which had occurred were discussed and the outcome shared with staff to see what could have been done differently and mitigate the risk of re-occurrence. The manager told us, “We collect feedback from meetings held. I hold departmental meetings as I prefer staff to have an opportunity to give me feedback in their own role. Relative meetings will now resume monthly. We send weekly emails to relatives. The residents’ meetings are held by the well-being team. Our annual surveys are due to go out shortly under the new provider. And feedback is also obtained through care reviews undertaken with resident of the day.”

Whilst people were generally positive about the attitude and approach of staff, one common cause of concern was the length of time it took staff to respond to call bells when people required. This meant people's care needs were not being met. Staff failed to recognise and respond to the needs, views, wishes and comfort of people who were being admitted to the service. Staff did not ensure a smooth transition or address their concerns and anxieties. We observed people waiting for prolonged periods of time in their rooms with no assistance or engagement from staff.

Staff were positive about the support they received from the manager, senior team and their colleagues. Comments included, “The support is better under the new provider as they have their own catering team. I get good support from my catering manager,” “Managers do my supervision; I do feel supported. I find the new manager good; they are approachable, very good with the residents.” And “My manager is very supportive to me, sometimes I need adjustments made to my shifts and they accommodate this.” The manager told us, “We have recently introduced ‘Employee of the month’ it has taken a lot of encouragement for staff to speak up and recognise other colleagues’ performance and the positive impact it has on people.”

The manager was committed to improving and sustaining the culture of the service. They promoted positive well-being through inclusivity, active listening, and open conversations. This enabled staff to feel confident in their ability to speak up and do their job to the best of their ability. Staff knew their role within the organisation and where to go to for advice and support. People were supported by staff who felt valued by their leaders and colleagues. Staff received regular supervisions and attended regular staff meetings. The provider schemes in place to reward staff for their hard work and dedication. Including access to discount schemes and health management referral services for staff support.