Glenholme

Updated 26 February 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Service and service type:

Glenholme is a care home. People in care homes received accommodation and nursing or personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

The inspection was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location was a care home for younger adults who are often out during the day. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

What we did when preparing for and carrying out this inspection:

We reviewed information we had received about the service since our last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We assessed the information we require providers to send us as least once annually to give some key information about the service what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection we spoke with four people who use the service and two family members to ask about the experience of living in the service. In addition, we also had discussions with the registered manager, deputy manager and two care and staff support staff.

We looked at the care plans of two people who used the service and five medication records. We undertook a tour of the premises and observed information on display around the service such as information about safeguarding and how to make a complaint. We also examined records in relation to the management of the service such as staff recruitment files, quality assurance checks, staff training and supervision records, safeguarding information and accidents and incident information.

Updated 26 February 2019

About the service:

Glenholme is a residential care home. The property is two houses joined together. There are dual facilities that includes two kitchens, two dining rooms and two lounges located in each adjoining property.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 18 people. Fourteen people were using the service at the time of our visit. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support in the following ways, promotion of choice and control, independence and inclusion. For example, people were supported to be more independent, with opportunities to try new experiences and gain new skills.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

People’s experience of using this service:

Quality monitoring systems were in place to drive improvements at the service. However, these were not always effective as they could be. For example, one person’s weights had not been monitored and checked to identify the person had been losing weight.

People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to ensure they could recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and they felt confident in how to report these types of concerns. People had risk assessments in place to aid them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.

There were sufficient staff with the correct skill mix on duty to support people with their required needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed. Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service. Effective infection control measures were in place to protect people.

People’s needs and choices were assessed and their care provided in line with their preferences. Staff received an induction process when they first commenced work at the service and received on-going training to ensure they could provide care based on current practice when supporting people. People were supported to access health appointments when required, including opticians and doctors, to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

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 systems in the service supported this practice.

People continued to receive care from staff who were kind and caring. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided and their privacy and dignity were protected and promoted. People had developed positive relationships with staff who had a good understanding of their needs and preferences.

People’s needs were assessed and planned for with the involvement of the person and or their relative where required. Care plans were personalised and provided staff with guidance about how to support people and respect their wishes. Information was made available in accessible formats to help people understand the care and support agreed. People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities that met their needs. People knew how to make a complaint if they had any concerns. There was a complaints procedure in place which was accessible to all.

Staff were respectful of the register manager and told us they were approachable and supportive. Quality monitoring systems were in place to drive improvements at the service. However, these were not always effective as they could be.

We found the service continued to meet the characteristics of a “Good” rating in all areas; More information is available in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: Good (The date of the last report published was 15 June 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated as Good.