This was the first comprehensive inspection we had undertaken at Greenacres Residential Care Home. This was because the provider (Croftwood Care UK Limited) re-registered with CQC in November 2017.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

On the first day of our inspection we noted several environmental risks around the home which, if not addressed quickly, had the potential to place people at risk of harm. This included the kitchen and laundry area not being secure early in the morning when staff were in other parts of the home assisting people. We also noted four upstairs bedroom windows did not meet the HSE (Health and Safety Executive) guidance and although fitted with restrictors, opened to a gap of more than 100mm. This presented the risk of somebody being able to fit through and hurt themselves.

Medicines were managed safely, although we observed on two occasions that the medication trolley was not always secured appropriately during medication rounds. This included the keys being left in the door and the medicines trolley door being left open when staff were not always watching the trolley.

Confidential information such as care plans and staff recruitment /supervision records were not being stored securely and could be easily accessed as cupboards were not locked.

We discussed these issues with the registered manager during the first day of the inspection and found prompt action was taken to address the concerns when we returned for our second visit.

The premises were being well maintained, with regular servicing checks of equipment and the building carried out. The home was clean and tidy throughout, with infection control procedures followed as required.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt the service was safe. There were appropriate risk assessments in place for people, with guidance on how to minimise risk. Staff recruitment was robust with appropriate checks undertaken before staff started working at the home.

We found staff received sufficient training, supervision and induction to support them in their role. The staff we spoke with told us they were happy with the training they received and felt supported to undertake their work.

We found the home worked closely with other health professionals and made appropriate referrals if there were concerns. Details of any visits from other professionals were recorded within people’s care plans.

Appropriate systems were in place regarding deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) and the mental capacity act (MCA).

People told us they enjoyed the food and we saw people being supported to eat and drink, throughout the day.

We received positive feedback from people we spoke with about the care provided at the home. Visiting relatives said they had no concerns with the care being delivered at the home. People said they felt treated with dignity and we observed staff treating people with respect during the inspection.

Each person living at the home had their own care plan in place which provided an overview of their care requirements and any associated risks.

There were a range of different activities available to participate in and people told us there was enough to keep them occupied during the day.

We found complaints were responded to appropriately, with compliments also collated where people had expressed their satisfaction about the care provided.

Staff meetings took place, giving staff the opportunity to discuss their work and raise any concerns about practices within the home. We observed a staff handover taking place, where an update was provided about people’s care needs from that shift.

St