Greenacre Park

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

People were not always receiving care that met their needs and was in line with their preferences. People’s care plans were not always up to date with the most relevant information. It was not clear who had been involved with the planning, managing and making decisions around people’s care at the end of their lives.

This service scored 46 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

When we spoke to people and relatives in the service, we were not assured that person-centred care was being delivered. Relatives did not always feel their relative’s needs could be looked after appropriately and told us they hadn't been involved in reviewing their care plans. One relative also told us, “There is definitely something not right in the home. It is not well led; it is more about the money not the individual.”

Staff told us they were not always given sufficient time to read people's care plans. One staff member said, “We’ve been very short staffed lately so not had time to read care plans.” Another staff member told us, “The care plans are abysmal.”

People’s care plans were not always accurate and up to date, so did not fully reflect people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. People’s care records did not evidence they were regularly involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, so it was centred around them and their needs.

People’s care was not always delivered in a way that met their assessed needs. For example, a person who was considered to be at high risk of pressure damage to their skin was not being repositioned according to their care needs.

Management told us they understood the diverse health and care needs of people. However, some staff members identified they required additional training in order to provide appropriate care. One staff member told us, “Staff need more training on complex care.”

Partners were concerned regarding the level of care people were receiving and the lack of engagement. Partners were also concerned regarding the inconsistencies in people care plans.

Processes did not always ensure people received continuity of care and treatment. Documentation at the service was not always kept up to date. This can impact continuity of care.

People and relatives explained that they had not seen copies of their care plans. They had also not been involved in writing this guidance documentation. This meant people were not provided with clear information about how their care could be provided.

The provider told us how information could be made available in different formats depending in people's needs. Staff were able to provide us with examples of how they communicated with a person living at the service who’s first language was not English.

Care plans reflected how staff needed to communicate with people that had specific needs. This included guidance for staff to observe nonverbal and facial gestures. We observed easy read safeguarding information available at the front of the service but did not see other information available in alternative formats for people.

Relatives we spoke to didn’t feel they were able to contact the service, and communication from the provider was not always forthcoming. One relative told us, “There are no meetings, no communication, emails, texts or phone calls.” Another relative said, “No communication, they do not volunteer information. We are not told anything; we have to ask all the time.”

The provider told us how they had recently had 2 meetings with family members during the week of the assessment and planned to have more structured meetings going forwards. One staff member said, “We want them to be part of the service we provide.”

We saw limited evidence that people were involved with planning their care and in the running of the home. There had been limited surveys or meetings with people living at Greenacre Park.

Most relatives didn’t feel reassured that the service reacted promptly to seeking medical advice when it was required. But they felt the staff always tried to engage in conversation with people in the service, but this could sometimes be difficult. One relative told us, “The staff are young and friendly but it is hard to communicate with some of them for me so it must be frustrating for [relative] and the other residents.”

Partners were concerned regarding equity in access. One professional shared concern with us regarding the care provisions in place for 1 person living at the service in the event they declined treatment.

Management and staff told us how they supported people to access the care, support and treatment they needed.

Reviews of people’s needs were not always completed to ensure changes were documented to enable appropriate planning for their individual circumstances and ensuring equal opportunity to care and support.

We did not receive any direct feedback in relation to this. Whilst people did not raise concerns with us directly, other evidence showed the service had not always ensured people’s wellbeing and care was being reviewed and delivered to ensure that everyone had equal opportunities.

Most staff told us they supported people to have good and equal experience and outcomes. They felt they supported people to live well and have support from external partners when needed. The manager told us the service supported people with their holistic needs, including spiritual and religious needs, and had tailored support around this in the past. However, we found staff were not always following care plans and risk assessments to ensure people had consistently good outcomes and experiences.

People’s care records did not always demonstrate attempts had been made to actively engage with people to ensure their needs and preferences could be met. We could not be assured that people were empowered by the provider to properly give their views.

We found people were not always consulted on their preferences and routines. We were therefore not assured that people would have a positive experience at the end of their life.

The provider told us how they planned to provide staff with more training to support people at the end of their lives.

Care plans did not always include holistic information on how people would like to be cared for when they came to the end of their life. It was not clear who had been involved with the planning, managing and making decisions around people’s care at the end of their lives. This meant people’s personal preferences may not be effectively met.