We carried out a review of the data available to us about Glasson House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Glasson House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Staff asked visitors to the service to have their temperature taken on arrival and provided facilities for handwashing. Clear instructions were displayed regarding handwashing and putting on personal protective equipment (PPE).
Staff had been trained in infection prevention and control and further training was planned for the day following the inspection.
The service had a detailed cleaning regime which the dedicated cleaner followed. This helped reduce the risk of infection. In addition, all staff cleaned contact points such as railings and handles at regular intervals.
The management team were up to date with latest guidance and ensured staff were also aware through meetings and handovers.
The service participated in a weekly testing programme for staff and monthly testing for people using the service.
Changes were made to the layout of the lounge and two meal time sittings were introduced to allow social distancing in communal areas. However the layout of the building, particularly the hallways made social distancing in these areas difficult.
We were somewhat assured that the service had an infection control policy. However this was a general policy and not specific to the service. Risks relating to the layout of the building and risks to staff of black and minority ethnic backgrounds had not been assessed. The management team said they would address this following the inspection.
The service was a house with six bedrooms with en-suite facilities. The building was partly wheelchair accessible. The service had communal areas including, kitchen, dining area and a living room.
At our last inspection in June 2016, the service was rated good. At this inspection, we found concerns with the cleanliness and maintenance of the service. This means that the service is no longer rated good and has been rated as requires improvement.
The service 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. The registered manager was unavailable on the day of the inspection and the deputy manager who runs the service on a day to day basis assisted with the inspection.
We found some areas of the service to be unhygienic and poorly maintained on the day of the inspection.
People were supported by sufficient levels of staff.
People told us that they felt safe living at Glasson House and were supported by staff who knew them well and supported them in a way that promoted their independence.
The service had risk assessments which identified people’s individual risks associated with their care and support needs. Risk assessments provided guidance as to how risks were to be managed or mitigated against to keep people safe.
Medicines were managed and administered in a safe way.
Staff told us and records confirmed that they were supported to carry out their role through a variety of processes which included induction, regular training, supervision and appraisal. Staff were safely recruited.
We observed people had developed positive and caring relationships with staff that were based on respect and trust. Staff also ensured that people’s privacy and dignity was maintained.
Care plans were detailed, person centred and provided information about people and how they wished for their care and support to be delivered.
People and their relatives knew who to speak with if they had any concerns or issues to raise. The service had not received any complaints since the last inspection.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The provider had policies and systems in place to support this practice.
Glasson House is a care home providing accommodation with personal care for up to six adults with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection, there were six people living at the home.
The service was located in a house with bedrooms with en suite facilities. The building was partly wheelchair accessible. There was no lift at the premises and hence, people using wheelchairs resided on the ground floor. The service had communal areas including, kitchen, dining area and a living room. The service had a large garden and a parking space at the front of the house.
The service had a registered manager who has been registered with the Care Quality Commission since 04 January 2011. 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.
People who used the service and their relatives told us they found staff friendly and caring. People told us staff listened to them and their individual health and care needs were met.
People told us they felt safe at the care home. There were safeguarding policies and procedures in place. Staff were able to demonstrate their role when raising safeguarding alerts and concerns relating to abuse.
Medicines administration records were clear and accurate records were being kept of medicines administered by staff. There were effective systems in place for medicines collection. Care plans and risk assessments supported the safe handling of people's medicines.
Care plans were personalised and detailed life histories, individual needs and likes and dislikes were recorded. Risk assessments were detailed and individualised, and care records were maintained efficiently.
People were supported to make choices of what they wanted to eat and we saw staff supporting them with those choices.
People were involved in planning their own care and were asked their views at the weekly residents’ meeting. The service used good practice such as adopted cognitive behaviour strategies and strengths based approach to help people maintain their wellbeing. People were supported to carry out activities within the care home and in the community.
Staff told us they were supported well; we evidenced records of staff supervision. Staff told us they attended induction training and additional training and training records evidenced this. There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to ensure that people’s individual needs were met.
The service followed safe recruitment practices. Staff files had records of application form, interview notes, criminal record checks and reference checks.
The service operated within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff asked people their consent before supporting them.
The service had robust systems and processes in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of service provided. There was evidence of regular monitoring checks of various aspects of the service.
Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Staff were caring and respectful and we saw that people responded positively.
People were protected from the risk of inadequate nutrition and hydration. We saw that people were given a choice of food and drink at lunchtime. On the day of our inspection we saw that people were encouraged to take part in preparing the lunch. Records showed that the service worked in cooperation with other healthcare professionals to meet the needs of people living at the home, such as the district nurse.
People were supported to access other health and social care services they needed, including a speech and language therapist for people with dysphagia, difficulty swallowing and who had special dietary requirements.
Systems were in place to gather information about the quality of the service and people had a say in how the service was run.
People's needs were assessed and care and treatment were planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. People's care plans were up to date and the care they received was reviewed. The organisation took steps to ensure people's safety and welfare.
There were systems in place to ensure that people were protected from abuse and that they received the care they needed. Systems were in place to monitor and to make improvements to the quality of care and support provided to people by the home.
Most people told us that they had been involved in the initial decision for them to move into the home and said 'I looked at it first. It was quite nice, it's alright'.
They told us that members of staff listen and that the support they received met their individual needs. A person told us 'we get the things we need'. They confirmed that 'consent is respected' and that they were involved in their care.
Personal accommodation maintained the privacy and dignity of people who had their own bedroom with en suite facilities. People were able to choose to spend time in their rooms, as they wished and they could also choose whether to socialise with other people living in the home. There were organised activities to take part in, if they wished. They mentioned art sessions and quizzes that 'wake up the mind'.
People were aware of their care or support plan and said 'It includes the things I want. It was reviewed a month ago by the local authority'. They were satisfied with the care received and with the assistance given to enable them to maintain a healthy and contented lifestyle. Religious and cultural needs were identified and addressed.
When asked about the meals provided in the home people told us 'The quality is good and there is plenty', 'I enjoy the meals, some of the time' and 'I like the meals. They are good, varied'. People were able to choose where they ate their meal and were able to eat the meal at the time they preferred.
People were supported to access health care facilities in the community and where necessary, an escort was provided. They told us that they were satisfied with the arrangements for managing their medication and that the support provided was reliable. They commented that 'I have lots of medication, it's under review, I know when to take it and I have some (PRN) when I need it'. When asked about the members of staff providing support and whether people felt safe and comfortable with them they told us 'I am happy here. If I have any concerns I can speak to (names given)'. There was a friendly and relaxed rapport between people using the service and the members of the staff team providing support. People were satisfied with the competence of carers and told us 'They know what they are doing. They know their job, they are trained'. People were also satisfied with staffing levels and said 'There is always someone around you can talk to'.
When asked about living in the home they told us that cleanliness was a consistent feature of the home and told us 'It's so clean. My father said this when he first came'.
The personal hygiene of people who use the service was good and contributed towards their self esteem. We discussed the accommodation and they were satisfied with the size of rooms. They told us about adaptations that had been made and said that the home was 'getting more friendly for disabled people'.
People using the service confirmed that their opinions and comments were valued and said 'you can say what you think'. They knew who they would speak to if they had any concerns and were aware of their right to complain if they were not happy about the service provided. Most people said that there had not been any need to make a complaint. Comments included 'If I have a problem I can talk to my key worker. They will listen and sort it out'.
A person visiting the home during the visit told us that 'everyone is friendly, everyone is happy and there is a nice atmosphere'. People using the service confirmed this and said 'We all look out for each other'. When asked about living in the care home we were told that 'you couldn't have a better situation'.
Most people told us that they had been involved in the initial decision for them to move into the home and said 'I looked at it first. It was quite nice, it's alright'.
They told us that members of staff listen and that the support they received met their individual needs. A person told us 'we get the things we need'. They confirmed that 'consent is respected' and that they were involved in their care.
Personal accommodation maintained the privacy and dignity of people who had their own bedroom with en suite facilities. People were able to choose to spend time in their rooms, as they wished and they could also choose whether to socialise with other people living in the home. There were organised activities to take part in, if they wished. They mentioned art sessions and quizzes that 'wake up the mind'.
People were aware of their care or support plan and said 'It includes the things I want. It was reviewed a month ago by the local authority'. They were satisfied with the care received and with the assistance given to enable them to maintain a healthy and contented lifestyle. Religious and cultural needs were identified and addressed.
When asked about the meals provided in the home people told us 'The quality is good and there is plenty', 'I enjoy the meals, some of the time' and 'I like the meals. They are good, varied'. People were able to choose where they ate their meal and were able to eat the meal at the time they preferred.
People were supported to access health care facilities in the community and where necessary, an escort was provided. They told us that they were satisfied with the arrangements for managing their medication and that the support provided was reliable. They commented that 'I have lots of medication, it's under review, I know when to take it and I have some (PRN) when I need it'. When asked about the members of staff providing support and whether people felt safe and comfortable with them they told us 'I am happy here. If I have any concerns I can speak to (names given)'. There was a friendly and relaxed rapport between people using the service and the members of the staff team providing support. People were satisfied with the competence of carers and told us 'They know what they are doing. They know their job, they are trained'. People were also satisfied with staffing levels and said 'There is always someone around you can talk to'.
When asked about living in the home they told us that cleanliness was a consistent feature of the home and told us 'It's so clean. My father said this when he first came'.
The personal hygiene of people who use the service was good and contributed towards their self esteem. We discussed the accommodation and they were satisfied with the size of rooms. They told us about adaptations that had been made and said that the home was 'getting more friendly for disabled people'.
People using the service confirmed that their opinions and comments were valued and said 'you can say what you think'. They knew who they would speak to if they had any concerns and were aware of their right to complain if they were not happy about the service provided. Most people said that there had not been any need to make a complaint. Comments included 'If I have a problem I can talk to my key worker. They will listen and sort it out'.