We carried out a review of the data available to us about Glenmore Trust - 2 Newton Road 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 Glenmore Trust - 2 Newton Road, you can give feedback on this service.
People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service accommodated three people at the time of the inspection. The accommodation is provided from a purpose-built bungalow and has suitable adaptations for people who may have limited mobility.
The care service was developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. The model of care proposed from 2015 and 2016 guidance that people with learning disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorder which proposed smaller community based housing. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
At our last inspection in May 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
.
At this inspection we found the service remained good.
People told us they were safe and were well cared for. Staff knew about safeguarding vulnerable adults procedures. There were enough staff available to provide individual care and support to each person. Staff upheld people's human rights and treated everyone with great respect and dignity.
The atmosphere in the service was lively and welcoming and the building was well-maintained with a good standard of hygiene.
There were opportunities for staff to receive training to meet people’s care needs. A system was in place for staff to receive supervision and appraisal and there were robust recruitment processes being used when staff were employed.
People were predominantly 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. However, we have made a recommendation about mental capacity and best interest decision making for checks to be made if a deprivation of liberty was required for some people to keep them safe.
Staff knew the people they were supporting well. Risk assessments were in place and they accurately identified current risks to the person as well as ways for staff to minimise or appropriately manage those risks.
Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff had developed good relationships with people and were caring in their approach. Care was provided with patience and kindness.
People were provided with opportunities to follow their interests and hobbies and they were introduced to new activities. They were supported to contribute and to be part of the local community.
Information was made available in a format that helped people to understand if they did not read. This included a complaints procedure. People we spoke with said they knew how to complain.
People were supported by staff who knew their individual dietary requirements and how to support them in the right way. People had access to healthcare professionals when they required them. People received their medicines in a safe way.
Staff said the management team were supportive and approachable. Communication was effective, ensuring people, their relatives and other relevant agencies were kept up-to-date about any changes in people's care and support needs and the running of the service.
The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided. People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was consultation with people and family members and their views were used to improve the service. We discussed with the registered manager this could be extended to obtain people’s views after each stay. Also to consider the formation of a forum, made up of representatives of people who used the service, to consult with them and involve them in the running of the service.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Glenmore Trust - 2 Newton Road (Newton Road) is registered to provide care accommodation and personal care for up to three people. It offers short term respite services for people who may have a learning disability. The accommodation has suitable adaptations for people who may also have limited mobility. Bedrooms are for single occupancy and are ensuite.
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 service ensured that people were provided with or were able to access meaningful activities.
The service had sufficient appropriately recruited staff available to support people. As part of their recruitment process the service carried out appropriate background checks on new staff.
Staff were aware of how to identify and report abuse. There were policies in place that outlined what to do if staff had concerns about the practice of a colleague or any other person who came into contact with people who used the service.
Staff were trained to an appropriate standard and received regular supervision and appraisal.
People who needed support with nutrition and hydration received it. The service took into account people’s beliefs and preferences when providing meals.
The management of medicines was well organised and there were systems in place to make sure people’s medications were checked in and out as they accessed the service.
We observed staff who were caring and treated them with dignity and respect.
Care plans were based on thorough assessments. The service took into account that people’s assessments needed regularly updated to reflect any changing needs.
Relatives told us the registered manager worked hard to provide a good service. We saw that the registered manager was well supported by the provider.
There was a quality assurance system in place at the service.
The service took into account people’s levels of capacity when supporting them to make a decision. They noted who had legal powers to help make decisions in people’s best interests though they did not always check the legal documents relating to this.
We recommend that the service reviewed the way it gathered and documented this information.
No-one we spoke to raised any concerns about the service.
We saw that the staff in the home treated people with respect. They supported people to be involved in making decisions about their daily lives and in being able to consent to the support they received. We saw that people were relaxed in themselves and interactions with the staff were friendly.
We found that procedures were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Medication was managed safely and robust systems were used to ensure people received medication as prescribed by their doctor.
There was enough staff on duty to provide a high level of care and support to people. Staff were well trained in subjects pertaining to supporting people who may have complex needs.
There was a complaints produce in place and any concerns were dealt with as soon as possible.
We observed people being supported by staff to undertake meaningful tasks and activities. Even though the service was for respite the delivery of care had a focus on enabling and engaging people to develop skills to become more independent.
We were able to see that people were supported to lead active and meaningful lives and access the local community on a regular basis. We observed staff being skilful and competent as they worked with people. Staff had received training and support in working with people with learning disabilities to enable them to do this.
We received feedback from relatives of people who stayed at the home and they were all very happy with the service. One relative reported, "It was good to see the careful pre-planning we did with the staff as this worked well and stopped my relative from becoming anxious." Another relative said, "It's very organised, and we are welcome to visit which is a great reassurance."