Loading
Date of assessment: 22 January to 20 February 2026. Greenways Live-In Care Ltd provides care and support to people living in their own homes. Not everyone received a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’ which is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. This assessment included a site visit to the office location. At the time of the assessment there were 23 people receiving care and support. This was the first assessment of the service since it registered with CQC. We reviewed all key questions and quality statements. Medicines were not always managed safely. Risks relating to medicines were not consistently assessed, and oversight of the electronic medicine administration system was not effective. One person’s medicines administration record contained incorrect information, which could have placed them at risk. In addition, some care plans and risk assessments did not fully address known risks. The provider took prompt action to address these issues, and there was no evidence anyone had been harmed. However, there were effective safeguarding processes. Staff were trained and understood their responsibilities in raising safeguarding concerns. Care plans included personalised guidance, to help staff support people safely and in ways that promoted independence. Staff told us they felt supported by the provider and received training, induction and supervision. Health and social care partners spoke positively about the service. They said the service communicates well, works collaboratively with partner organisations, and responds quickly to requests and recommendations. Staff were described as professional, person- centred and responsive, including in complex cases. We identified 2 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. There was a lack of consistent oversight of risks to the service and auditing processes were not always effective in identifying shortfalls. Recruitment processes were not always followed consistently to ensure safe staffing. For example, the provider did not always check for gaps in employment history for newly recruited staff. Staff competencies were not always checked by the provider to ensure staff were supporting people safely.
npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-18139809494.