Archived: Glenhomes Care Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

The management team had worked closely with colleagues across health and social care, to ensure they were following the most up to date guidance. Staff wore and disposed of PPE appropriately and washed their hands regularly. However, we asked the provider to provide some refresher training around hand hygiene after observing staff not using hand sanitiser after adjusting their face masks.

The service had a robust cleaning schedule; the domestic team were organised and worked effectively to ensure the home was clean and tidy. Social distancing was promoted between staff wherever possible; however, social distancing wasn’t promoted between residents in communal areas, so we have asked the provider to review this.

The service has robust checks in place for visitors on whether they had any COVID-19 symptoms or had tested positive. Guidance related to COVID-19 was visible on arrival at the home. Hand hygiene was promoted and visitors were asked to sign a disclaimer stating they had not been in contact with anyone who had was symptomatic or who had tested positive. The service had installed a visiting pod, away for the main building, which promoted cleanliness and safety for people and relatives.

Robust risk assessments were completed, making it clear how staff could reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19. Where risks had been identified, measures to support staff had been recorded. Staff had received training in infection control and the correct use of PPE.

Glenhomes Care Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care for 19 older people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 21 people.

The home is a large house in the Heaton area of Bolton. There are 21 single rooms within the property.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Medicines were not always safely managed and staff administering medicines did not have competency checks of their ability to do so. Risks in relation to legionella had not been assessed. There was a delay in the lifting equipment receiving a required service. Improvements to individual risk assessments were needed. Further work was required to ensure staff were recruited safely.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities under their registration. Staff felt well supported and received regular supervision and attended staff meetings. Quality audits were in place, but we could not be certain of how they improved the service. Staff, people and relatives were complimentary about the registered manager.

People were supported to eat and drink and receive a healthy and nutritious diet. People had access to a range of health professionals. The home was well designed and maintained. People has access to equipment to keep them safe. Staff received an induction into the service and training appropriate for their job role.

People and relatives felt the staff team were caring and kind. We observed kind interactions from staff to people living at the home. The staff team were aware of people’s needs and responded to people in a timely manner.

People were confident any complaints would be listened to and responded to. Care plans required further work to become personalised. People could be supported to remain at the home, should they be at the end of their life. Activities were varied, and people enjoyed attending them.

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

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 28 March 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the safe, responsive and well-led sections of this full report.

We have identified breaches in relation to safe care and treatment at this inspection.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Glenhomes Care Home is a care home providing personal care for up to 21 older people. It is situated close to the centre of Bolton, the motorway network and public transport. The home is a large converted, semi-detached building, in a residential area, built on four floors (the fourth floor is not used by residents), with a passenger lift provided. There is a garden with both a lawned and patio area which is fenced off for safety.

There was a registered manager in place at the home. 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 told us they felt safe. Staffing levels at the home were good and staff recruitment and induction procedures were robust. Training was ongoing and staff had regular supervisions and appraisals to ensure their development and training needs were continually reviewed.

There was an up to date safeguarding policy and staff demonstrated a good knowledge of the procedures. There was also a whistle blowing policy which staff were aware of. Health and safety measures were in place.

Medication systems were appropriate and medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely at the service. Infection control procedures were in place and the home was clean and free from malodours.

The service was working within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s nutritional needs were recorded and met appropriately. There was a good choice of food and the mealtime experience was pleasant and unhurried.

People told us staff were kind and we saw respectful and friendly interactions within the home throughout the day. Visitors told us they were made welcome and people and their relatives were involved in all aspects of care planning. People’s dignity and privacy was respected at all times.

Some staff had undertaken training in end of life care and others were booked on further training courses. This helped support people at the end of life, according to their expressed wishes.

Care plans were person-centred and included a range of health and personal information, including likes, dislikes and background history. This helped staff care for people in a more individual way.

There were a number of activities and outings on offer and people told us they enjoyed them. Special occasions were celebrated and people were supported to pursue their interests and hobbies.

The service had an appropriate complaints policy which was displayed prominently in the home. No recent complaints had been received but the service had received a number of compliments.

People who used the service, relatives and professionals felt the management were approachable.

Staff were supported via supervision sessions, meetings and informal chats.

Questionnaires were used regularly to seek opinions of people who used the service. The results were used to continually improve the service.

A number of audits were regularly carried out to help ensure quality of service delivery. The management were involved in a number of local groups to enable them to keep up to date with best practice and current guidance.