You are here

Glynn Court Residential Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 March 2018

Glynn Court Residential Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation, nursing and/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. The home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 31 older people some of whom were living with dementia and/or physical health needs. At the time of our inspection there were 27 people living at the home. The main house accommodation is split over two floors. Most of the bedrooms are on the ground floor with a staircase and chairlift to two first floor bedrooms and a bathroom. There is a large lounge and separate dining room on the ground floor. There is also a separate two storey house with six bedrooms and a lounge for people who are able to live more independently. The home has a large garden which is accessible for people who have mobility needs.

The inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 12 February 2018 by a lead inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is someone who has experience of using, or caring for someone who uses this type of service. The lead inspector returned on 16 February 2018 to complete the inspection.

There were two registered managers in place who jointly managed the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.

People were protected from abuse. Staff knew how to identify abuse and how to report any concerns. People, their relatives, staff and healthcare professionals told us they thought people were safe.

Recruitment procedures were safe and ensured only suitable staff were employed. Sufficient staff were deployed during each shift to keep people safe and meet their needs.

People’s medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines from staff who were trained and regularly checked for their competency to do so.

Risks relating to people’s health and welfare had been identified and assessed and measures were in place to reduce these. Environmental risks were assessed and urgent maintenance issues were attended to promptly. Some minor repairs and redecoration was required. The registered managers and maintenance staff were waiting to hear if an increase in maintenance hours had been approved by the provider. Plans to manage emergency evacuations were in place and understood by staff.

People’s rights were protected because staff understood and followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Deprivation of liberty safeguards had been submitted to the local authority for authorisation when required.

People were supported to maintain their health and well-being and had access to a range of health care services, such as GPs, opticians and chiropodists, when required. Other specialist advice was requested to support people with specific condition, such as diabetes and swallowing difficulties.

Staff received regular training, supervision and appraisal which included observations of their practice. This ensured they remained competent to support people effectively.

People had a choice of nutritious food and drink that met their specific dietary needs and preferences. When appropriate, staff provided physical assistance to people to eat in a calm and unhurried manner.

Staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect. Staff knew people and their relatives well and visitors were made welcome at any time.

Care plans included details of people’s life histories and personal preferences about how they would like to receive their care. People and their relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care.

People were encouraged to take part in a range of activitie

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 March 2018

The service was safe.

Medicines were safely managed. People received their medicines as prescribed, by staff who were trained to do so.

People were protected from harm because staff understood how to identify and report abuse. Risks to people�s health and wellbeing had been identified and measures put in place to mitigate the risks.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people�s needs safely. Recruitment procedures ensured only suitable staff were employed.

The environment was regularly checked to ensure it remained safe and emergency procedures were in place in the event of emergencies.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 March 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported to eat and drink a balanced diet that met their specific needs. People�s rights were protected as staff obtained consent before providing any care and worked within the principles of the MCA 2005.

People had access to appropriate health care to help them maintain their health and wellbeing.

Staff received supervision, appraisal and training to support them in their roles. The environment was accessible to people and included pictorial signage to assist them with orientation around the home.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 March 2018

The service was caring.

Staff knew people well; their likes, dislikes and what was important to them. Staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect and promoted their independence.

The atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed. Interactions between people and staff were positive and respectful.

Relatives were welcome to visit at any time and felt involved in the family member�s care. People�s personal information was treated confidentially.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 March 2018

The service was responsive.

People and their relatives were involved in developing and reviewing their plans of care.

Staff communicated with people in a way which met their needs and provided a range of activities for people to take part in if they wished to do so.

People and relatives told us they knew how to raise a complaint if they needed to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 March 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a relaxed, supportive and open culture and staff understood the values and vision for the home.

Staff felt valued and listened to by the registered managers and were able to share their ideas.

People and relative�s views and quality assurance systems ensured that standards were monitored and areas for improvement identified and addressed.