Greensand House

“The assessment took place to follow up on a breach identified at the previous assessment. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in safe care and treatment. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. We did not rate the service at the previous inspection as we did not review sufficient key questions. Since the last assessment, a new manager had started at the service who had submitted an application to register with CQC.”

“The provider ensured there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked well together to provide safe care which met people’s individual needs. However, there were some concerns raised around staff not always being able to spend meaningful time with people. Also, there were times staff were not supporting new staff proactively whilst they were shadowing. Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were now assessed appropriately and routinely reviewed. We have fed back that people were not always being supported to wash their hair as frequently as needed. The manager responded well to any concerns we identified and put actions in place to address them.”

“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Recruitment processes were managed safely. The service promoted a person‑centred culture, offering people choice and control over most aspects of daily life. People’s health needs were met, and the service maintained strong working relationships with stakeholders and other agencies, including health and social care professionals. Staff were caring, respectful and supported choice and independence.”

“Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding processes and respected people’s wishes. Where people were unable to make their own decisions, they were supported in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.”

“There were good systems to protect people from the risk of infection and cross contamination, and staff followed good practice. There was a wide range of activities available to people, all person-centred. The management team was passionate about meeting people’s needs and actively involving them in their care and the running of the service. Leaders fostered a positive culture in which people felt they could speak up and have their voices heard. There were efficient quality assurance systems in place to ensure oversight of the service.”