You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 8 May 2019

About the service: Glenroyd House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care under a contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. Glenroyd House accommodates up to eight people who may have a learning disability, in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection, seven people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿ The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice, and independence.

¿ People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

¿ People felt safe using the service and under the new management team reported various improvements.

¿ People felt listened to and found the new registered manager approachable and friendly.

¿The safe recruitment of new staff meant improvements had been made in how people could spend their time. There were now more drivers available to support people to access the community when they chose and enjoy a range of activities.

¿ Previously concerns had been raised about how people’s finances were managed but this issue had been addressed and a robust system for monitoring people’s money was in place.

¿ There were systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of harm. Risks to people were very well managed with one exception which placed a person at risk of harm.

We made a recommendation about risk recording.

¿ The local authority had previously found that the service was not pro-active in supporting people to manage their own medicines. This had been addressed and the service was actively supporting people to take on these responsibilities if they chose and were able. We did find several errors relating to administration of medicines which were addressed at the time of inspection.

We made a recommendation about medicine management.

¿ Staff had training in food hygiene and infection control and followed good practice to prevent contamination and the spread of infection.

¿ People had choice around mealtimes and were involved in shopping and meal preparation.

¿ Staff received training and monitoring to ensure they were competent in their role.

¿ Staff enjoyed working at the company and felt well supported.

¿ A new registered manager and deputy had recently been recruited. Both were valued by people and staff.

¿ People were supported to be independent and exercise choice and control in their daily lives and could access a range of activities and interests of their choosing.

¿ Information was provided to people in easy read formats to help people’s understanding, including how to make a complaint or raise concerns.

¿ Systems and processes were in place to monitor safety and quality and drive improvements.

¿Peoples information was protected and confidentiality maintained.

¿ People and staff were included in the running of the service and were provided with opportunities to share their ideas and give feedback.

Rating at last inspection: Requires improvement. (Last report published 12 June 2018). At the last inspection people were not always receiving care which responded to their needs and preferences in relation to accessing the community and following their interests. Improvements were also needed to the management of the service. Some systems had not been reviewed and improved such as the rota arrangements, communication with and involvement of staff and financial systems. As a result the service was in breach of Regulation 9 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We also made two recommendations about keeping people’s information saf

Inspection areas



Updated 8 May 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 8 May 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 8 May 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 8 May 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 8 May 2019

The service was well led.

Details are in our well led findings below.