Greenwood Court Care and Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We reviewed 7 quality statements under this key question: shared direction and culture; capable, compassionate, and inclusive leaders; freedom to speak up; workforce equality; diversity and inclusion; governance, management and sustainability; partnerships and communities; and learning, improvement and innovation. We identified a breach of legal regulation during this assessment. The providers governance systems were not effective and did not identify the shortfalls found during the assessment, including: concerns relating to the effective monitoring and oversight of call bell response time and the safe management of medication. The manager was committed to improving outcomes for people and adhering to the providers values. However, further learning and development was needed to provide a more robust and effective monitoring of the service and ensure the management team had effective oversight. Staff were clear about their responsibilities and roles and felt supported by the manager and management team. Staff spoke positively about the change in leadership. They felt able to speak up and were confident the manager would actively listen and address any issues raised. The service worked in partnership with others to achieve better outcomes for people. The manager participated in peer support meetings to share information and learning.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The manager promoted the ethos of the provider and ensured it was embedded within the culture of the home. They told us, “I ensure staff understand and abide by the values of the service, ‘our family caring for yours.’ I encourage the teams to live by these values and work by these values, to create the impression and deliver the standard of care that we expect.”

The manager was committed to ensuring there was a shared vision and strategy. They were keen to encourage and equip staff with the necessary support and skills to know, and understand the vision, values and strategic goals of the provider and supported staff in understanding how their role helped achieve them.

The manager told us they were well supported by their senior leadership and staffing team. Staff were positive about the changes to the leadership of the service comments included, “There is better support for us now,” and “I find the new manager good; she is approachable, and very good with the residents.” Although the feedback we received was positive, further improvements were needed to the organisation's governance processes to ensure leaders at all levels had a clear oversight of the service and risks to people were well managed.

Although new to their role, the manager was knowledgeable and commitment to making improvements to the quality of the service. However, the systems and processes in place to monitor risk and drive improvement were not robust. They had failed to identify concerns found during the assessment visit. The registered manager recognised improvements were needed to ensure governance and leadership was more robust and effective in managing the day-to-day quality of the service. Time was needed to embed any changes to the system and ensure their sustainability.

Staff we spoke to were confident their voices would be heard if they had cause to raise a concern. A member of staff told us, “I like to write up my notes fully on each shift, and also any new ideas I have, I feel I am listened to.”

The manager and senior team sought feedback from staff in numerous ways including; staff meetings, staff surveys; and 1:1 supervision. Staff surveys were due to be sent out in the coming weeks under the new provider to obtain up to date feedback. The results off the survey would be used to improve the quality of the service for people and staff. The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place. Whistleblowing is the process which protects staff from being unfairly treated by their employer if they have raised a genuine concern about a person’s care. Staff meetings we reviewed showed evidence of the providers whistleblowing policy being discussed as part of the meeting’s agenda.

Staff told us the manager had made reasonable adjustments to support them to carry out their roles well.

Staff had undertaken equality and diversity training as part of their induction and had access to the organisations policy on equality and diversity.

At the time of our assessment the service did not have registered manager in post. The current home manager was in the process of applying to register with the Care Quality Commission. Staff were positive about working for the new provider and the stability they hoped they would bring. However, we found concerns in relation to the providers lack of oversight. Ineffective audits meant the provider was unable to assure us of their ability to identify, monitor and assess risks to the health, safety and welfare of people.

The quality assurance and governance arrangements in place were not always effective in identifying shortfalls at the service. They had failed to identify the concerns found during the assessment visit. Risks to people’s safety and well being were not always being recorded, monitored, and managed effectively. This meant we could not be assured there was effective oversight of the service.

People had the opportunity to access the local community. One person told us, “I like it here, although it is not like home of course but good enough. We get to go out and have recently visited Maldon.”

The manager told us how they worked with other professionals and received support and guidance when needed. They spoke positively about working in partnership with other health professionals and the local community. A member of staff told us, “People can go to a church service every Sunday. They go to garden centres, Maldon and Highland Park. We have use of the minibus twice a week to go out.”

Feedback from 2 visiting professionals was complimentary of the new deputy manager. They told us “The new deputy manager is good, they get the job done, they are well organised and a good communicator.”

Arrangements were in place to ensure staff understood the positive impact working with other agencies and professionals had on people’s outcomes. Information was shared with relevant professionals as required with the aim of achieving the best outcomes for people.

The management team told us they learned from incidents and accidents that happened at the service and any lessons learnt or actions taken were disseminated to staff. However, we identified concerns relating to people’s repositioning and medication charts which had not been completed. These concerns had not been identified or addressed by the providers own internal auditing processes or by senior staff responsible for monitoring people’s welfare charts.

Processes were in place to ensure learning happened when things went wrong. However, the systems did not always accurately reflect or measure the impact upon people living at the service. For example, the lack of call bell monitoring meant the leadership team did not have the oversight of the negative impact staffing levels and deployment were having on staff's ability to meet peoples care needs. We were not assured senior staff were always recognising when improvements were needed.