We carried out a review of the data available to us about Glebe House Retirement Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Glebe House Retirement Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Visitors did not access the service building. Pre-planned visits took place in a marque in the garden.
The activities co-ordinator had taken photos of people wearing masks and social distancing in the local community to keep people up to date with what was happening in the area.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
There were 15 older people, some living with dementia, living in the service when we inspected on 15 May 2018. This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection.
This service had previously been owned by another provider, it was registered under the current provider in May 2017. This was the service’s first inspection under the new provider.
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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
There were systems in place to provide people with a safe service. Staff were trained and understood how to safeguard people from abuse. Risks to people were assessed and staff were provided with guidance about how to minimise risks. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and this was kept under review. Recruitment processes were robust to check that prospective staff were suitable to work in the service. Medicines were managed safely. There were infection control systems in place to reduce the risk of cross contamination. The service learned from incidents and used them to drive improvement.
Staff worked with other professionals involved in people’s care to provide people with an effective and consistent service. People had access to health professionals when needed. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and met. 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 environment was appropriate for people using the service. Staff were trained and supported to meet people’s needs effectively.
People were treated with care and compassion by the staff. People’s privacy and independence was promoted and respected. People’s preferences and views were listened to and valued.
People’s care was assessed, planned for and met. Care records guided staff in how people’s preferences and needs were met. People had access to social activities to reduce the risks of isolation and boredom. Where people had made decisions about their end of life care, this was documented. There was a complaints procedure in place and people’s complaints were addressed and used to improve the service.
The service had systems in place to monitor and improve the service provided to people. The quality assurance systems helped the provider and the registered manager to independently identify and address shortfalls in the service. The views of people, staff and visitors were valued and used to improve the service. As a result the service continued to improve.