Archived: Glendale

Updated 14 September 2017

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 8 August 2017 and was unannounced which meant the provider did not know we would be visiting. The inspection team was made up of one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally required to let us know about.

We also contacted the local authority commissioners for the service, the local authority safeguarding team, the clinical commissioning group (CCG) and the local Healthwatch to gain their views of the service provided. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We did not receive any information of concern from these agencies.

Some of the people who used the service had complex needs which limited their communication. This meant they could not always tell us their views of the service, so we asked their relatives for their views. We spoke with three relatives who were visiting the service during the inspection.

During the visit we spent time with the three people living at the service. We also spoke with the manager, a senior support worker, an acting senior support worker and a support worker.

We reviewed one person’s care records and three staff files including supervision and training information. We reviewed medicine administration records for two people as well as records relating to the management of the service.

Due to the complex needs of some of the people living at Glendale we were not always able to gain their views about the service. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 14 September 2017

Glendale is a detached bungalow set in its own large gardens in a residential district close to the centre of Hartlepool. Glendale provides residential care services for up to four people with learning or physical disabilities. There were three people using the service during our inspection. The provider has recently applied to the Commission to increase occupancy at a similar service nearby with a view to closing Glendale soon.

At the last inspection on 27 May 2015 the service was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

Staffing levels were appropriate for the needs of people who used the service. Risk assessments relating to people's individual care needs and the environment were reviewed regularly. Medicines were administered safely and stored securely. Accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns were recorded and dealt with appropriately.

Staff received appropriate training and support. 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 were supported to have enough to eat and drink and attend appointments with healthcare professionals.

There was a welcoming and homely atmosphere at the service. People were at ease with staff and relatives said staff were caring. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion.

Staff had a clear understanding of people's needs and how they liked to be supported. People's independence was encouraged without unnecessary risks to their safety. Support plans were well written and specific to people's individual needs.

Relatives felt the service was well managed. Staff described the manager as approachable. There was an effective quality assurance system in place to ensure the quality of the service and to drive improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.