Glastonbury Court

Glastonbury Court has three separate suites: Abbey, Royal and Angel and each unit has separate adapted facilities. Angel provides people with nursing care.

We found the following examples of good practice.

The service was clean and fresh smelling throughout. Staff were observed wearing personal protective equipment and told us that they had access to plentiful supplies. Audits were undertaken to check that staff were following the guidance.

Schedules were in place which evidenced regular cleaning, including the cleaning of areas of frequent touch points.

Steps were taken to protect people from the risks of acquiring infection. Professionals were subject to screening procedures on arrival. There was a system of regular COVID 19 testing for people who used the service, staff and visitors.

People living in the service were enabled to maintain regular contact with friends and family. The role of the essential care giver was supported to promote people’s wellbeing.

The service had comprehensive polices and procedures in place to manage the risks associated with the pandemic. Infection control champions were in place to promote good practice.

Glastonbury Court is a registered care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 60 people. At the time of the inspection there were 55 people living in the home. Most of these people were older adults with needs associated with physical disability, dementia or long-term conditions.

Glastonbury Court is a dementia home and consists of three separate suites: Abbey (early stage residential dementia), Royal (advanced stage dementia) and Angel (nursing care dementia), each of which has separate adapted facilities.

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

People were provided with tailored care and support which promoted excellent outcomes for them in line with their specific needs and individual preferences. Feedback was complimentary about the caring nature and approach of the staff. It was evident that people were actively involved in their care arrangements and were consistently treated with dignity and respect in a way that truly valued them.

Significant emphasis was placed on supporting people with their hobbies and interests as well as providing stimulating and engaging activities which promoted people’s physical and emotional welfare and enriched their daily lives.

People's diverse needs were identified and met and their right to confidentiality protected. When the time came staff respected people’s wishes and provided them with exceptional, holistic and dignified end of life care.

The leadership of the service was outstanding. Robust quality assurance systems had sustained continual development and improvement in the home leading to positive outcomes for people.

The registered manager, supported by their senior management team, had established a person- centered culture amongst the staff team, that consistently delivered high quality care.

Staff and the management team were passionate and motivated about their roles and understood their responsibilities. They actively engaged and included people and their relatives in the ongoing design and delivery of their care and the wider issues within the home and their feedback was valued.

Glastonbury Court was at the heart of the local community. A commitment to ensuring the home was inclusive enabling people to lead meaningful lives was clearly evident. There were high levels of engagement with people, relatives and other professionals to continually develop the home and enhance people’s experiences of living there.

Strong community links had been maintained with different community groups regularly visiting the home and people accessing the local area through a wide range of meaningful activities that enhanced their wellbeing. This contributed towards people’s sense of purpose and belonging.

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.

Risks to people were assessed and mitigated, which reduced the risks of avoidable harm. Staff received training in safeguarding and there were systems in place designed to reduce the risks of abuse happening. Where people required support with their medicines, this was done safely.

Recruitment systems were safe. The management team regularly reviewed staffing arrangements to ensure there were enough staff with the right skills and experience to care and support people. Infection control processes protected people from the risks of cross infection and the home was visibly clean throughout.

Since our last inspection, under the leadership of the registered manager Glastonbury Court had gone from strength to strength. People benefitted from a visibly person-centred culture that consistently delivered positive outcomes, reinforced by the provider’s principles, values and expectations of staff. This underpins the characteristics of an outstanding service.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 03 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

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

There was 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.

There were systems in place to minimise risks to people and to keep them safe however we saw some inconsistencies with how these were followed by staff. Management was made aware of our concerns and they assured us this would be addressed immediately. There were mixed views about whether there were sufficient numbers of staff. At times the service relied on the use of agency staff. However, there was an on-going recruitment campaign to employ further permanent staff.

Permanent staff had a good knowledge and understanding of each person, about their life and what mattered to them. However, some people felt that agency staff did not know them as well. There was a positive, open and inclusive culture in the service. The atmosphere in the service was warm and welcoming. People received care that was personalised to them and met their needs and wishes.

Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent and were compassionate, attentive and caring in their interactions with people. They understood people’s preferred routines, likes and dislikes and what mattered to them. People were involved in making decisions about their care.

People presented as relaxed and at ease in their surroundings and told us that they felt safe. Procedures were in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. People knew how to raise concerns and were confident that any concerns would be listened and responded to.

People were complimentary about the way staff interacted with them. Independence, privacy and dignity was promoted and respected. Staff took account of people’s individual needs and preferences and people were encouraged to be involved in making decisions about their care.

Care plans reflected the care and support that each person required and preferred to meet their assessed needs and promote their health and wellbeing. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and professional advice and support was obtained for people when needed. They were supported to maintain good health and had access to appropriate services which ensured they received ongoing healthcare support. People were provided with their medicines in a safe manner. They were prompted, encouraged and reassured as they took their medicines and given the time they needed.

The management team and staff understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice .

The service had a quality assurance system in place which was used to identify shortfalls and to drive improvement. The provider worked towards a service improvement plan which was regularly updated as changes were being made within the service. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving. This helped to ensure that people received a high quality service.