Greenways, a care home in Crawley, West Sussex, has been rated inadequate by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and placed in special measures to protect people, following an assessment carried out in February and March.
Greenways, run by Adelaide Care Limited, is a residential care home providing personal care to up to six people who have complex learning disabilities and care needs including autism and epilepsy.
The assessment was prompted in part due to concerns CQC received regarding the quality of care at the home.
Following this assessment, the home’s overall rating has dropped from good to inadequate as has its ratings for being safe and well-led. Its ratings for being effective, responsive and caring have moved from good to requires improvement.
The service has also been placed in special measures, which means it will be kept under close review by CQC to keep people safe and it will continue to monitor to check sufficient improvements are being made. If CQC doesn’t see rapid and widespread improvements, further action will be taken.
CQC has taken further action against the provider, which will be reported on when we are legally able to do so.
Natalie Reed, CQC deputy director of operations in the south, said:
“When we assessed Greenways, it was concerning to see the lack of strong leadership displayed by the provider, Adelaide Care Limited and the culture it created didn’t enable staff to deliver person-centred care.
“We found that incidents and accidents weren’t always recorded in detail with actions taken on how to reduce the risk of them happening again. Staff weren’t consistently keeping records when someone diagnosed with epilepsy had a seizure. In another case, someone experienced heightened anxiety around another resident but details about this so it could be avoided in future, were lacking.
“The service wasn’t supporting people to live independently, and decisions weren’t always made in their best interest. Staff locked a resident into their living space for long periods of time, with no way for them to visually monitor their wellbeing while this occurred. This restrictive practice is unacceptable.
“In addition, we found people weren’t always supported to make choices about their care, including showering when they wanted, being able to use all of the communal areas freely, or helping to choose the food they would eat. One person’s care plan listed domestic tasks for them to complete and noted staff might need to prompt them if they refused, however we saw no guidance on the person’s right to decline or whether the activities benefitted their wellbeing.
“We were also concerned to find there wasn’t enough staff to support people and that their working hours were unsafe. Records showed some staff had worked 90-hour weeks with back-to-back shifts, which didn’t allow time for them to properly rest.
"We have told Greenways where we expect to see rapid and widespread improvements and will continue to monitor them closely to keep people safe while this happens. We will return to check on their progress and won’t hesitate to take action if people are not receiving the care they have a right to expect.”
CQC also found:
- Not all staff had completed all mandatory training and staff supervisions were not identifying shortfalls in the care being provided
- Leaders didn’t have effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services provided. Risks were not always being identified, monitored, and mitigated
- Medicine record-keeping wasn’t always safe. There was poor guidance for staff around when to give someone medicine that was meant to be taken as and when required. For example, staff guidance for someone who was prescribed paracetamol had the same wording as someone else who was prescribed an anti-psychotic medicine. This meant staff might not give a person medicine when they needed it
- Health and social care professionals gave positive feedback about the service who said people were supported with compassion and skill. However, assessors found leaders and staff were not always giving accurate feedback about people’s care to health and social care professionals.