Archived: The Glen Rest Home

The home required 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. There was a registered manager in post who had been registered since October 2010. The registered manager was not present during our visit and did not participate in the inspection. The assistant manager assisted us with our inspection.

During our inspection, we identified breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulated Activities 2014 in respect of Regulation 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2014 Regulations.

These breaches related to the safety of the premises and the management of the service. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People who lived in the home told us they felt safe and had no worries or concerns. From our observations it was clear that staff cared for the people they supported and knew them well. People’s relatives also told us they felt people were safe. During our visit, however we identified concerns with the service.

During our visit we found that some areas of the home were in need of repair and improvement to ensure they were suitable for use, we also saw fire doors that had been wedged open.

We saw highly confidential personal information regarding the people living in the home was left in a communal area were visitors and other people living in the home would have been able to access it.

The policies and procedures had not been reviewed for a significant amount of time meaning staff did not have up to date guidance to support them in their work.

Care plans and risk assessments were in place, however some of these were not up to date and did not reflect the persons changing needs.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been adhered to in the home. We saw the people at the home who lacked capacity and that the appropriate number of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications had been submitted to the Local Authority in relation to people’s care.

The staff in the home knew the people they were supporting and the care they needed. We observed staff to be kind and respectful.

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

Glen Rest Home had a thorough recruitment procedure in place. We saw that all pre-employment security checks had been completed which helped ensure the safety of all people who used the service.

As part of the staff induction, mandatory training was completed related to the safeguarding of vulnerable people. We spoke to several staff members and they knew how to safeguard the people they cared for.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) become important when a person is judged to lack the capacity to make an informed decision related to their care and treatment. The provider told us no applications for DoLS had been made but knew the procedure to be followed if an application needed to be made.

Is the service effective?

All people who used the service had undergone a pre-admission assessment which recorded all their care needs, wishes and preferences. The care plans we saw had all been signed by the person which meant they had been involved in writing up their care plans.

Several people had made particular care needs. One person was a diabetic and the provider had arranged for a low sugar diet to meet their needs. Several people had their religious preferences recorded and the provider had addressed them in line with their choices.

Is the service caring?

We spent time in communal areas and observed staff members caring for people in a patient manner. Several people who used the service had limited verbal communication and staff took their time to understand what their needs were and met them appropriately.

We spoke with several people who used the service and one told us, "The staff look after us very well. They are really good and help me a lot." Another person told us, "I am very happy here, always have been."

Is the service responsive?

Although no complaints had been received recently, there was a complaints procedure in place and people we spoke with were aware of it. One person told us, "If I had a problem I know I could just talk to one of the staff."

The Registered Manager told us, "We have tried various activities in the past, and residents really enjoyed them." We were also told that some people who used the service decided not to take part in some of the activities and their choice was respected.

Is the service well-led?

We saw evidence that there were procedures in place that monitored the quality of service being provided to people who used the service. The results of both internal and external audits showed that all shortfalls had been addressed. As a result, the quality of the service was continually improving.

The provider had recorded professional visits which included those from GPs and community nurses. This showed there was a multi-disciplinary approach to providing care at the rest home. This meant people received care and treatment when they needed it.

We spoke with two people who used the service and two members of staff at the Glen Rest Home. We looked at nine peoples care records and were able to see person centred care plans in place which supported staff in delivering the care required for each person. For two people we looked back through records and were able to see that health needs were being met in a timely and safe way.

We found that there was good choice for people regarding food preferences.

Staff we spoke to had a good understanding of people's dietary needs, their likes and dislikes. One person who lived there said "I love the food here" and another person said "you can have whatever you want and they will get it for you".

People we spoke to said that The Glen Rest Home was very friendly and the staff were kind. They felt they were able to talk to staff if they had any concerns and they knew they would be listened to. People also said that all the staff had been at The Glen for so long they were like family.

We conducted a visit to the home in May 2013 to check up on the service's action report and also view the environment. Safety control measures were now in place for the windows, hot water supply and radiators. This meant people received care and support in a safe environment.

We did not speak with people at this inspection about the safety control measures which were put in place by the provider.

At this inspection we found a lack of safety control measures regarding the windows, radiators and hot water temperatures in the home. This meant people were not protected by living in a safe environment. The provider had started to take some action to ensure the health and safety of people who lived at the home.

We followed up on infection control procedures in the home. This is because at the last inspection in January 2012 we found the home to be non compliant regarding safe standards of infection control in the home. At this inspection we found improvements had been made. People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

We asked people to tell us about the care and support they received. Their comments included, "Very good care", "You could not ask for more and the girls talk to me about my care", "The care and support is really good" and "I am content, the staff are helpful."

People spoken with confirmed they were encouraged to express their views openly and the staff listened to them. People confirmed they could spend their day as they wanted and there were no restrictions. A person said, 'I like going out from the home and also being able to spend time in my room when I want."

At the time of our inspection people received care and support from sufficient numbers of staff.

There was an effective complaints system available should people wish to raise a complaint about the home. People we spoke with did not raise any concerns about the home during our visit.