Archived: The Glen Care Home

There is a registered manager in post. 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 had, as required, made applications under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and obtained an authorisation under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) arrangements. However, there needed to be improvements in the process and recording when making best interests decisions where people lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves. The service protected people's rights by seeking consent for care and use of certain equipment.

People felt safe living in the home. One person saying "I feel comfortable with staff they make me feel safe." A relative told us they felt staff looked after their relative well and always "Leave here knowing they are safe." Staff demonstrated their knowledge of abuse and responsibilities to report any concerns about possible abuse. Importantly staff were confident the registered manager would act to protect people if told of any such concerns.

People told us staffing arrangements were good and how staff were available and responsive to their requests for assistance and support. There were consistent numbers of staff on duty. Recruitment arrangements ensured employees had the necessary experience and were suitable to work in a care home setting.

People told us they felt confident about staff having the necessary skills and training. One person told us "The carers are good and really know what they are doing and I can depend on them for anything."

People had access to community health services and their GPs when this was requested. Healthcare professionals we spoke with were positive about the care provided by the service. There were good relationships with outside professionals and people had access to specialist support and advice.

People told us they enjoyed the varied menu and always had a choice of meals. One person said "The food is good and I always enjoy my meal." The service ensured people's nutritional needs were met and took action to address any concerns about people physical wellbeing and ensure they were able to have a healthy diet suited to their needs.

People spoke of respectful staff who recognised their right to privacy and upheld their dignity. People and relatives spoke of caring, courteous, professional and friendly staff. One person told us "I always feel staff treat me with respect and speak to me how I like to be spoken to." and another person said "They (staff) treat us with respect and dignity." A healthcare professional told us they found staff "All very caring and friendly and welcoming."

People told us they felt able to have control over their daily routines and what they wanted to do each day. One person spoke of how they chose to remain in their room and this was respected by staff. Others told us how they could choose to get up and go to bed when they wished. One person said "It is very good I get to say what I want to do and when." Where people had complex or need for more specialised care plans reflected people's needs so care could be provided in a person centred way. Staff knew people's routines, likes and dislikes and how they liked care to be given.

There was a welcoming environment where people were able to maintain their relationships with family and friends. People and relatives told us there were no restrictions on visiting.

People felt able to voice their views or concerns about the service. There were regular meetings where people living in the home and their relatives were kept informed about the service and people could give feedback about the quality of care provided in the home.

There were a range of quality assurance audits which had identified areas for improvement. A home improvement plan demonstrated how these had been actioned.

People and staff spoke of a registered manager who was approachable and made themselves available to people on a daily basis through walking around the home. This was commented on by people we spoke with. One person told "She is always about which is nice because you can have a chat with her about anything if you want."

During the inspection we found action had been taken to address the concerns. As part of the inspection we spoke with nine people who lived in the home, 10 members of staff and two relatives. All the people we spoke with gave positive feedback about the home.

People we spoke with told us they felt happy and safe at The Glen. Comments received included, "It is good here; they look after me very well"; "they go out of their way to help me"; "the girls are lovely". They all told us the manager was good and they were confident about talking to them if there were any issues.

All nine people spoken with told us they found the staff friendly and helpful. They said staff were knowledgeable and worked well as a team. The staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of the care needs of people who lived in the home. Staff members told us "I love working here".

We observed the home environment was clean, hygienic and the atmosphere was friendly, calm and relaxed. We saw staff treated people with respect and dignity.

Staff told us there were always enough staff on duty and a duty manager on call if needed. Staff confirmed they had received training about infection control practices. They told us they received appropriate support from the manager.

We saw effective systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

All the people we spoke with told us they liked the home and were happy with the care and support they received. We saw the home assessed people's needs and care plans were developed to meet these needs.

People told us they felt safe living at the home and confident staff would take any concerns seriously. Staff demonstrated to us they were aware of the providers safeguarding procedures and knew how to respond to allegations of abuse appropriately.

We found people were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed. For example, we saw bathroom floors did not have an unbroken washable surface to ensure appropriate cleanliness for the prevention and spread of infection.

We found staffing levels were not always appropriate to meet the needs of people who lived in the home. We saw in the afternoon one floor of the home did not have any staff available to respond to people who called for assistance.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Where checks identified shortfalls, these were addressed and action plans put in place to ensure these areas were addressed.

We observed that people were well supported and treated respectfully by staff. We looked around the location and saw bedrooms, communal areas, bathrooms and toilets were clean and odour free.

We looked at people's care plans, personal care needs, risk assessments and daily routines and found that they encompassed the safety and well-being of people who use the service.

Training records showed that staff had received all relevant training. We noted that staff received regular supervision with annual appraisals in place. We found that not all staff had been appraised and the manager informed us that this had been identified and was being addressed.

People who use the service and visitors told us they knew how to raise a concern or complaint and felt confident in doing. They said if they had any issues or concerns they were able to discuss "anything with staff or the manager."

We reviewed the medication process and found shortfalls in the way medication was being recorded which may have an impact on the people who use the service.

The quality of the service was monitored at local and provider level through regular checks. People who use the service, family, staff and stakeholders were provided with the opportunity to give feedback and influence the way the service was run .