Greensleeves

We carried out this assessment on 3 and 14 September 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. Throughout our visit we saw people moving around the home, making their own choices where to spend their time and what activities they wanted to do. Everyone had goals, decisions made by them about their future wishes and ambitions.

We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

Accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns had been correctly reported and recorded and the registered manager made sure that any learning from trends or patterns, was shared with all staff. Staff were able to tell us about occurrences that would amount to a safeguarding and the steps they would take to make people safe. Staff knew people well and were aware of risks that people were susceptible to and managed to minimise the chance of things going wrong by attending to people’s needs. Staff had been recruited safely and were supported with ongoing supervision meetings and competency checks. Staff training was up to date and regularly reviewed including the completion of training in learning disability and autism. There was some reliance on agency staff, but every effort was made to use the same agency staff who were knowledgeable and experienced in looking after people at the home. The home was well maintained and was safe with attention having been paid to potential hazards. Medicines were administered and stored safely. Decision specific mental capacity assessments were in place. Best interest meetings had taken place.

Thorough pre-assessments were carried out by the registered manager to ensure that all health and social care needs could be met. Consideration was given to how people would fit in with their new peers at the home and to the experience and skills of the staffing team. Most people had lived at the home for several years and over time their support needs had developed and changed. Every effort was made to continue to support people to remain at the home and meet their needs. Working closely with other health and social care professionals, positive outcomes were achieved for people. Staff were aware of the importance of gaining consent from people before supporting them with a task or activity. All staff we spoke with told us that they respected people’s choices and preferences.

Staff supported people in a kind, compassionate way, empathising with their immediate and longer-term needs. People were always treated with dignity. We saw people supported at mealtimes and this was achieved by staff taking their time with people, not rushing them and being constantly aware of the person’s comfort. People were encouraged to be as independent as safely possible. Most people were able to go out from the home to take part in activities or to attend a local day centre when supported by staff. Staff told us everyone was encouraged to independently maintain their abilities to wash and dress and to achieve these tasks safely.

Care provision was person - centred. People were able to contribute to the way their support was planned and delivered resulting in them receiving the right care at the right time. This was further reflected in care plans which emphasised what people could achieve for themselves before describing their needs. People communicated in a variety of ways but all were able to make their immediate and longer-term needs known. Staff knew people well and were able to detect changes in presentation which indicated, for example, increasing anxiety or when feeling unwell. Early interventions and responses resulted in better outcomes for people. Everyone had access to a variety of activities and were able to choose each day what they wanted to do and the level to which they wanted to be involved.

The registered manager had been in post for several years and had a clear vision of the future of the home which centred around people, their ongoing support and providing as far as practicable, a home for life. Effective auditing processes were in place. The registered manager kept a spreadsheet of action points from auditing processes which were updated to ensure an effective process that focused on continuous improvement. Staff had various opportunities to contribute to improvements at the service and a recent suggestion box, along with regular supervision and team meetings, encouraged the adoption of positive ideas across the service.