Greenhill Park Residential Care Home

Since our last inspection, the provider has changed. The last rating for this service under the previous provider was good and the report was published in March 2021. At this assessment the overall rating for Greenhill Park is requires improvement. This is based upon the findings at this assessment.

We found two breaches of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and governance. People were not always kept safe from avoidable harm; we found unsecured furniture throughout the home and uncovered radiators as well as, unsecured radiator covers which presented a risk of injury and burns. The registered manager had quality systems and processes in place; however, these were ineffective in identifying the concerns we found during this assessment. We also found people were not supported effectively with bowel management. The registered manager was responsive during the assessment and addressed some of the issues we had found. We asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment. The provider was responsive to this request and produced an action plan, with completion dates on when issues identified would be addressed. We were assured by the work that had been completed and the rest of the work was scheduled for completion. We look forward to seeing the completed work in its entirety at the next inspection.

Staff told us they felt people living in the home were happy and safe. They demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences. During our observations, interactions between staff and people were positive and respectful, with staff consistently supporting personal preferences in line with each person’s care plan.

The care plans we reviewed were detailed and included person‑centred information. They contained good background history, giving staff a good understanding of each person and their preferences. Where appropriate, people had mental capacity assessments in place; however, some paperwork lacked sufficient detail regarding best‑interests decisions. When people lack capacity for specific decisions, best‑interests processes should be followed, involving relevant professionals and those important to the person, and ensuring decisions are made in the least restrictive way in line with best practice. Most people living in the home who lacked capacity had a lasting power of attorney or a court‑appointed deputy in place.

The home had systems in place to ensure medicines were managed safely and people received their medication in line with prescribed guidance. The service maintained a positive working relationship with the local GP, who visited regularly to review people’s health needs and discuss their medication with them. However, we found systems to support people on bowel management plans were not effective, and the provider lacked sufficient oversight in this area to ensure people were supported safely. We also found medication stored in the home belonged to people who no longer lived in the home.