You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Little Glen on 9 September 2021. 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 Little Glen, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 9 April 2018

During a routine inspection

Little Glen is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Little Glen provides accommodation and personal care to up to three people living with a learning disability. There were three people living at the home when we inspected.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection, the service was rated ‘Good.’

Rating at this inspection

At this inspection we found the service remained 'Good'.

Why the service is rated Good

People told us they felt safe living at the service. Staff understood the importance of protecting people from harm; they knew how to recognise abuse and discrimination. People were supported to manage their finances safely.

People continued to be involved in all aspects of their care and had maximum control of their daily lives. People were supported to live the life they wanted in the least restive ways. Every activity was risk assessed and evaluated to ensure people were able to do the things they wanted.

People told us that there was always enough staff on duty to support them to access the local community and meet their family or friends. Staff had been recruited safely and people were involved in the interview process.

People continued to receive care and support by trained staff who had the opportunity to improve their skills and competencies. Staff felt valued by the management team and received regular supervision and an annual appraisal to give them the opportunity to develop their skills.

Staff supported people to keep healthy and manage their medicines safely. When new people came to live at the service their needs were assessed to make sure they would receive the right support. People were involved in menu planning each week and went food shopping. They told us they could choose the meals they wanted and were supported by staff to eat healthily.

At the time of the inspection no adaptations were required to meet people’s individual needs. People and staff worked together to make sure the service was clean and tidy. People described how the fire equipment was checked to make sure it was working. There were ongoing plans to improve the premises; a new kitchen had just been fitted and new furniture being ordered for the lounge.

Staff understood the importance of supporting people to make decisions and systems were in place to obtain consent from people and to comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were treated with kindness, mutual respect and equality. People were relaxed and had jovial conversations with staff and each other. Staff listened and chatted with people about their interests and daily events. There were regular meetings so that people could voice their opinions about the service.

People described how they went to the local shop on their own and were supported to be as independent as they wanted. They told us how they visited their friends and went to visit their relatives.

People were aware of their confidential records which were stored securely.

People were involved in all aspects of their care and showed us their support plans. The support plans gave clear guidance of how they wanted to be supported, their preferences and choices. Staff worked together with people, their family and health care professionals to ensure people received the care they needed. New plans were being implemented to gather additional information to ensure people’s wishes at the end of their lives were planned and recorded.

People were encouraged to try new acti

Inspection carried out on 15 December 2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 15 December 2015.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to three people who have learning disabilities. The premises are an end of terrace house in a residential street, about a mile from Dover town centre. On the ground floor there is a lounge dining room, kitchen, a shower room with a toilet and one of the bedrooms. The other two bedrooms are situated upstairs; each having a bathroom close by and there is also an office. There is a small garden at the back of the property. At the time of the inspection three people were living at the service.

This service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who is 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 told us they felt safe living at the service. There were detailed risk assessments in place for each person who received care. The assessments identified people’s specific needs, and measures were in place to reduce the risks, without restricting peoples’ activities or their lifestyles.

There were effective systems to safeguard people from harm. Staff knew what action to take in the event of any suspicion of abuse. They were also aware of the whistle blowing policy and were confident that if they raised concerns the provider would take the necessary action to protect the people living at the service.

There were systems to review accidents and incidents, and make any relevant improvements to reduce the risk of them happening again. Plans were in place in the event of an emergency and people had personal evacuation plans in the event of a fire. Checks on the equipment and the environment were carried out regularly to make sure the premises were safe. There was a plan in place to re-decorate and replace some flooring in 2016, and routine maintenance was carried out on a regular basis.

There were enough staff to make sure that people’s needs were met. Additional staff were on duty throughout the day to ensure that people were supported to enjoy activities of their choice. Staff were trained, and supervised to ensure they had the right skills and knowledge to provide the support and care people needed. People were protected by robust recruitment procedures to ensure that staff were of good character and suitable for their job roles. New staff were given a detailed induction, and completed a probationary period to make sure they were suitable to work with people.. The on-going training programme ensured that staff had the right skills, knowledge and competencies to carry out their roles. Each member of staff had received an annual appraisal to discuss and agree their ongoing training and development needs.

People’s needs were assessed and their preferences taken into account when they moved into the service. New people were given time to get to know people living at the service and staff in order to settle into the service. Care and support plans were designed around people’s individual interests and needs. These were written in a way people could understand and included pictures and photos.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff showed they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). Mental capacity assessments had been carried out to determine people’s level of capacity to make decisions in their day to day lives and for more complex decisions when needed. DoLS authorisations were in place for people who needed constant supervision because of their disabilities. Guidelines were being followed by staff to ensure there were no unnecessary restrictions to people’s lifestyles.

Staff supported people with their health care needs and when it was necessary, health care

professionals were involved to make sure people remained as healthy as possible. People were encouraged and supported to have a nutritious and healthy diet. Medicines were managed safely and stored securely.

People said they liked the food. They were involved in the menu planning and also went shopping to buy the food. People had their weight monitored and if they needed further support with their dietary needs they were seen by a dietician to make sure they continued to receive a healthy diet.

There was a strong emphasis on person centred care and care plans covered people’s preferred daily routines and lifestyle. People talked about their support plans and showed they were involved in the planning of their care. The plans were reviewed on a regular basis so that staff had the current guidance to meet people’s changing needs. The registered manager ensured that staff had a full understanding of people’s support needs and had the skills and knowledge to meet them. Staff skills and knowledge was monitored to make sure they knew people well and how to support them in a way that suited them best. The staff were flexible and adapted to meet people’s changing needs.. They supported people to follow their own pathway and reach new goals.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. The staff positively supported people, treating them with dignity and respect to enable them to plan activities and events to enrich their lifestyle. Staff knew the people well and encouraged them to enjoy their social lives and meet with their family and friends regularly. People were able to express their opinions and were encouraged and supported to access the local and wider community. People told us, and we observed that people’s privacy was respected. Staff were kind and patient in their approach. They knew people well and had developed good relationships with them.

Feedback about the service was gathered from people, their relatives, staff and other stakeholders. Their opinions had been summarised and analysed to promote and drive improvements within the service. Staff told us that the service was well led and that the management team were very supportive.

Comprehensive quality monitoring was in place with detailed checks regularly undertaken to identify any shortfalls and how the service could be continuously improved. There was a culture of openness and inclusion within the service.

People told us they did not have any complaints but would speak with staff if they were upset or something was wrong. There were systems in place to investigate and respond to people’s complaints. The complaints procedure was also in an easy read picture format to ensure that people were able to understand the process.

Inspection carried out on 2 January 2014

During a routine inspection

There were 3 people living at Little Glen when we inspected. We spent time with two people and observed interactions between the people and the staff. People said they liked the staff and enjoyed living at the home.

We found that people were supported to give consent and were involved in the decisions about the care and support they received. People told us they had the opportunity to go to college and were supported with their choice of activities such as horse riding and having meals out in the local restaurants.

Staff were observed asking people for their consent before any support took place and their wishes were respected. People were able to let staff know what support they needed and we saw staff respond in a caring way.

Care plans were detailed giving staff the guidance they needed to ensure that they met people's needs. People's health needs were supported and the service worked closely with health and social care professionals to maintain and improve people's health and wellbeing.

We saw that there were systems in place to make sure people who used the service received their medicines regularly and safely.

Staff recruitment records showed that new staff had been thoroughly checked to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

We saw that people and relatives were asked their views on the standard of service being provided. There were procedures in place for people to complain.

Inspection carried out on 22 January 2013

During a routine inspection

People were happy and relaxed in the company of staff and records showed that they took part in a range of community based activities. They talked about the activities they were involved in and how they could make their own decisions about what to do and when. People said they liked the meals, were able to choose what they had to eat and were involved in the shopping.

People told us they were happy living at the home. They said they would talk to the staff if they had any concerns and staff would listen to them.

We found that people's health needs were supported and the service worked closely with health and social care professionals to maintain and improve people's health and well being. People said that they had support to attend doctors, optician and dental appointments.

They said there was always enough staff on duty to support them and make sure they were able to participate in their chosen activities, such as going bowling, horse riding and to the local shops.

.

The staff we spoke with had knowledge and understanding of people's needs and knew people's routines and how they liked to be supported. People said the staff were polite and caring. They told us they were satisfied with the service and did not have any complaints.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)