• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Glen Lee

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Wavell Road, Bitterne, Southampton, Hampshire, SO18 4SB (023) 8047 3696

Provided and run by:
Southampton City Council

All Inspections

26 July 2018

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 26 July and 1 August 2018 and unannounced.

At the last inspection of 25 July 2017, we found a breach of regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. During this inspection we found improvements had been made and there was no longer a breach.

Glen Lee 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.

Glen Lee provides accommodation and personal care for up to 33 people who may be living with dementia. The accommodation is provided over two floors accessed by a passenger lift. There are a number of communal areas where people can sit together or alone if they wish. There is also a garden which is safe for people to access independently. On the first day of the inspection there were 12 people living at Glen Lee and this increased to 14 people on the second day of the inspection.

The registered manager had previously stopped working at the home and had applied to deregister with the CQC at the time of the inspection. 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 provider had employed the services of an external consultancy company as a short-term arrangement to improve the quality of the service. During the inspection process, a new manager had been recruited.

Medicines were stored safely and at the correct temperatures. People received their medicines as prescribed, from trained staff. The provider had policies and procedures in place designed to protect people from abuse and people felt safe living at Glen Lee. Risk assessments identified when people were at risk and action was taken to minimise the risks. Where incidents had occurred, these were recorded appropriately and the incident reviewed to understand how the situation had occurred. Lessons were learned and improvements made when things went wrong. The home was clean.

People’s needs were met by suitable numbers of staff, who were trained and supported in their roles by the management structure. Staff supported people to eat and drink in line with their preferences, individual needs and dietary requirements. Staff knew people well and sought professional medical help when necessary. Mental capacity assessments and best interests decisions were completed where necessary. The provider had invested in the environment which was designed to meet people’s needs.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. Staff were patient with people, offering and supporting their choices. People were supported to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their care and support. Staff supported people with their personal care whilst being mindful of their privacy and dignity.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs and enjoyed a range of activities, which were tailored to their interests and choices. People were consulted about their end of life care choices and wishes. People and their relatives had access to the complaints procedure.

The provider promoted a positive culture that was open and transparent and staff enjoyed going to work. The provider had a management structure throughout the organisation and staff were aware of their role within the structure. People, their relatives and staff were involved in how the service was managed. The provider and manager ensured the service was continuously learning and improving and there was an effective system of auditing to improve quality.

25 April 2017

During a routine inspection

When we last inspected Glen Lee on 9 December 2014 we found mmedicines were not always managed safely.

During this inspection on 25 April 2017 we found the provider had made some improvements but we also identified new concerns. Some people had care plans for medicines, but some did not. Records were not always accurate around medicines. New care plans for people’s care and support had been introduced but were not completed effectively. Activities did not always meet people’s needs. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided but these were not always effective in identifying areas for improvement.

Glen Lee provides accommodation and personal care for up to 33 people who may be living with dementia. The accommodation is provided over two floors accessed by a passenger lift. There are a number of communal areas where people can sit together or alone if they wish. There is also a garden which is safe for people to access independently. On the day of the inspection there were 24 people living at Glen Lee.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

People’s needs were met by suitable numbers of staff. Staff had completed training with regard to safeguarding people and were aware of how to use safeguarding procedures. People had risk assessments in place to ensure every day risks were identified and minimised where possible. The provider had taken action to ensure recruitment procedures were safe.

Staff had training in and followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights. People were supported by staff who had received an effective induction into their role, which enabled them to meet the needs of the people they were supporting. Staff were further supported through supervision, training and appraisal. People could choose what they wanted to eat and drink and the environment, such as the dining room, was decorated with their individual needs in mind. People had access to healthcare services when necessary.

Staff developed caring relationships with people using the service. People were encouraged to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their care and support. Staff were mindful of respecting people’s privacy and dignity when supporting them with personal care.

There were some good examples of how staff had considered the needs of people living with dementia within the service and responded to their views and ideas. The provider had a complaints procedure in place which was followed by the registered manager.

The registered manager and provider promoted a positive culture that was open and inclusive. Staff spoke highly of the registered manager. The registered manager ensured the home met registration requirements.

9 and 11 December 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 9 and 11 December 2014 and was unannounced. The planned inspection was brought forward in response to concerns we received about people not having their needs met.

The home provides accommodation and care for up to 34 older people, some of whom were living with dementia. There were 30 people living at the home when we visited. There are bedrooms over two floors and a passenger lift. There is a range of communal sitting areas as well as a dining room where people can eat together if they choose to.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the home is run.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Whilst no-one living at the home was currently subject to a DoLS, the registered manager was in the process of applying to the local authority for people who may need a standard (rather than urgent) application.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. There was not a robust system of audit in place to enable staff to know how medicines should be stored at the home and care plans were not in place for people prescribed medication as ‘when needed’.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. However, staff said they sometimes felt rushed and did not feel this “was fair” on people living in the home.

We recommend that the provider reviews the way in which staffing levels are decided, to ensure people receive care which meets their needs.

Thorough recruitment checks were completed before new staff started work to ensure they were safe to work with people. Staff had received training in safeguarding and how to protect people and were aware of how to refer issues to the local authority safeguarding team.

Staff had the appropriate knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. Staff were aware of the importance of seeking consent from people before they supported them around the home. People were involved in how their needs were met. People enjoyed mealtimes and were supported to eat and drink in individual ways.

Staff were caring in their approach, which people responded to. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity when supporting them and respected their wishes.

People received care and support which met their individual needs. People’s views of the home were sought and there was a complaints procedure in place.

The culture of the home encouraged people, their relatives and staff to give their views and the registered manager was approachable. There was a system of audit in place to ensure the quality of the care provided. The registered manager was supported in their management role.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

17 April 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people using the service, a relative, three members of staff and the manager.

People told us they were happy at the service. One told us they 'always feel happy here', and another told us the staff were 'all very good, very good people'. A relative told us they were happy with the care and support their relative received from staff.

We reviewed care plans for four people using the service. They were person-centred and contained essential details about people's care and support needs.

We observed staff supporting people to take part in joint activities, and those people appeared happy and contented. Support was observed to be sincere, respectful and responsive to individual needs.

People were given choices and allowed to give their consent to care and support whenever possible. Where people lacked capacity to give their consent, the service followed clear guidelines to make sure people's rights were safeguarded in line with legal requirements.

The premises were well designed, laid out and maintained so as to be fit-for-purpose for meeting people's diffferent needs. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. An effective complaints procedure meant any complaints were investigated and resolved to people's satisfaction.

27 December 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This was a follow up inspection to verify that actions had been taken by the provider to ensure that correct procedures for the administration of medicines were followed. We observed staff administering medicines, reviewed procedures and spoke with two members of staff and the manager. We found that actions had been taken to ensure that people using the service had their medicines administered correctly, and that staff were following correct procedures. People using the service were protected from the risks associated with the inappropriate handling of medicines.

1 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with 11 people, six visitors and the staff who were on duty at the time of our visit. To help us to understand the experiences of people, we observed how people spent their time, the support they received from staff and whether they had positive outcomes. People told us that they were treated with respect when receiving care and they liked living at the home. Relatives told us that their relatives were 'very well looked after'. They told us that the staff were 'very good'. People said that the staff were very busy and there were not always enough staff. People and relatives said the food was very good and choices were available.

Care plans and risk assessments were in place although these did not always reflect the current needs of people. People were provided a choice of meals that met their needs, although support with meals were at times lacking. Relatives were confident that any concerns they raised would be taken seriously and staff would help them to resolve the issue.

Medicines were not managed appropriately and may put people at risk to their health and welfare. There were not always adequate staff and this may impact on the care that people received. The infection control procedures at the time of the inspection were inadequate and may put people at risk to their health. There was an audit system that looked at the service delivery.