Glebe House

Updated 1 May 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes that have experienced an outbreak of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 30 March 2021 and was unannounced.

Updated 1 May 2021

The inspection took place on 21 January 2019 and was unannounced. Glebe House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Glebe House is situated in Southbourne, West Sussex and is one of a group of homes owned by a national provider, Shaw Healthcare Limited. Glebe House accommodates 40 people across separate units, each of which have separate bedrooms with ensuite shower facilities, a communal dining room and lounge. There were also gardens for people to use and a hairdressing room. The home provides accommodation for older people, a small number of whom are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 39 people living at the home. The home had a registered manager. 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.

At the last inspection the home was rated as Good. At this inspection we found the home remained Good.

People continued to be safe. Risks to their safety had been identified and lessened. People were supported by sufficient staff who had the appropriate skills to meet their needs. One person told us, “If I call for help, normally they come quickly, but if it’s an emergency they come running”.

People were protected from abuse. Staff knew the signs that might indicate a person was experiencing harm and knew what to do if they had concerns about people’s safety. One person told us, “I’m safe. It’s a lovely place”.

People’s needs were assessed and met. Their health was promoted and people were encouraged and able to maintain their health and well-being. Timely responses and referrals had been made when people were unwell. People received their medicines to maintain their health and told us that they trusted staff to meet their needs when they were unwell. Staff worked in a coordinated way with external healthcare professionals.

The home was clean. Infection control measures ensured that people were protected from the spread of infection and cross contamination was minimised.

People were complimentary about the food and told us that staff respected their right to choose what they had to eat and drink. People had sufficient amounts to eat and drink. One person told us, “The meals are very good, reasonable choice”.

People had access to an environment that met their needs. People had their own rooms if they preferred to spend time alone. Communal areas such as lounges, dining rooms and gardens enabled people to spend time with others to meet their social needs.

People were actively involved in discussions and decisions about their care. Regular care plan reviews as well as residents’ and relatives’ meetings enabled people to voice their opinions and make suggestions. People could raise questions and concerns. These were respected, listened to and welcomed. One person told us, “I do feel party to discussions about my care”.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and procedures at the home supported this practice.

Care was person-centred and focused on people’s needs and preferences. People told us that they were fond of the staff and that they were well-cared for. Positive and compassionate interactions were observed and people were treated with kindness. Staff were sensitive to people’s needs and supported people in a way that maintained their dignity and privacy. People received dignified and appropriate care at the end of their lives.

Feedback about how the home was managed was positive. The registered manager worked in partnership with others. People, relatives and staff were complimentary about the leadership. They told us that it was well-organised and that they were involved in the running of the home. One person told us, “I know the manager and I feel I can approach her”.

Quality assurance processes provided the registered manager and other external managers with a way of monitoring the systems and processes within the home to ensure that these were effective.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.