You are here

Glebe House Care Home (Nursing) Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 26 September 2017

This inspection was carried out on 6 September 2017 and was unannounced. Glebe House Care Home (Nursing) provides residential, nursing and respite care for older people who are physically frail. It is registered to accommodate up to 41 people. At the time of our inspection 30 people were living at the service. There were four other people living at the service that were under the care of the First Community Health Team and as such would be inspected separately.

There was a manager in post and present on the day of the inspection. They had submitted their application to become registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 said that they felt safe with staff. There were systems in place to ensure that people were protected against the risk of abuse. People, relatives and staff felt there were sufficient staff at the service. Staffing numbers at the service were adequate to meet the needs of people. People were protected from being cared for by unsuitable staff because robust recruitment was in place

Risks to people were minimised as there were appropriate measures in place to protect people. Incidents and accidents were reviewed and action taken to reduce these. People's medicines were managed appropriately.

People said that they enjoyed the meals at the service. People’s nutritional and hydration needs were being met and health care professionals were involved in their care.

People’s rights were protected because staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). People told us that they were asked for consent by staff.

Staff received appropriate induction, training and supervision to undertake their role effectively.

People and relatives said that staff at the service were caring, attentive to their needs and treated them dignity and respect.

Staff understood the needs of people and people and the relatives were involved in the care planning.

There were adequate activities in place and people told us that they were not bored.

Care plans outlined individual's care and support and staff understood the care they needed to provide. Staff communicated changes to people’s care with each other.

Complaints and concerns reviewed and used as an opportunity to improve the service. People told us that they would know how to complain if they needed to. Compliments were received at the service and these were shared with staff.

People, relatives and staff felt the service was managed well. They felt that they were listened to and any concerns acted on.

The provider worked with external professionals to ensure the quality of care. Staff said that they felt valued and appreciated.

There were robust systems in place to ensure the quality of care. This included internal and external audits, surveys and feedback.

The manager had informed the CQC of significant events including significant incidents and safeguarding concerns. Records were accurate and kept securely. There was a contingency plan in place in the event of an emergency at the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 26 September 2017

The service was safe.

There were enough staff at the service to support people's needs.

People had risk assessments based on their individual care and

support needs. Staff understood the risks to people.

Medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. People had access to medicines when they needed.

Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff commenced work.

There were effective safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from potential abuse. Staff were aware of their roles and




Updated 26 September 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported to have access to healthcare services and healthcare professionals were involved in the regular monitoring of their health.

Staff understood and knew how to apply legislation that supported people to consent to treatment. Where restrictions were in place this was in line with appropriate guidelines.

People were supported by staff that had the necessary skills and

knowledge to meet their assessed needs. Staff received supervisions to ensure best practice.

People had enough to eat and drink and there were arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk.



Updated 26 September 2017

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.

People's privacy were respected and promoted.

People's preferences, likes and dislikes had been taken into consideration and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.

People's relatives and friends were able to visit when they wished.



Updated 26 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People's needs were assessed when they entered the service and on a continuous basis. Information regarding people's treatment, care and support was reviewed regularly.

People had access to activities and people were protected from social isolation. There were a range of activities available within the service.

People were encouraged to voice their concerns or complaints. Complaints were acted upon.



Updated 26 September 2017

The service was well- led.

The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service the home provided.

The provider actively sought, encouraged and supported people's involvement in the improvement of the home.

Staff were encouraged to contribute to the improvement of the service and staff felt valued.

The management and leadership of the home were described as good and very supportive. Records were maintained securely.