You are here

Gleavewood Residential Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 April 2018

We inspected Gleavewood Residential Care Home on 20 February 2018. Gleavewood Residential Care Home 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. The service is registered to accommodate up to 30 people. At the time of the inspection 26 people were living at the service some of whom were living with dementia and other chronic conditions.

A registered manager was 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. At the time of the inspection the registered manger was working in the capacity of 'compliance manager' and the day to day responsibilities for managing the service had been delegated to the manager of the service.

The provider undertook quality assurance reviews to measure and monitor the standard of the service and drive improvement.

Staff had received essential training and there were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of the service, including the care of people with dementia. Staff felt supported by the management. They had regular supervision meetings with their manager, and formal personal development plans, such as annual appraisals were in place.

People chose how to spend their day and they took part in activities such as; exercise classes, quizzes, manicures and themed events, such as Chinese new year celebrations and visits from external entertainers. People were also encouraged to stay in touch with their families and receive visitors.

People were being supported to make decisions in their best interests. The registered manager and staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Accidents and incidents were recorded appropriately and steps taken to minimise the risk of similar events happening in the future.

Risks associated with the environment and equipment had been identified and managed. Emergency procedures were in place in the event of fire and people knew what to do, as did the staff.

People were happy and relaxed with staff. They said they felt safe and there were sufficient staff to support them. When staff were recruited, security and identity checks were completed before they started work. Staff were knowledgeable and trained in safeguarding adults and what action they should take if they suspected abuse was taking place. Staff had a good understanding of equality, diversity and human rights.

People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink well. There was a varied daily choice of meals and people were able to give feedback and have choice in what they ate and drank. Health care was accessible for people and appointments were made for regular check-ups as needed.

People felt well looked after and supported. We observed friendly relationships had developed between people and staff. Care plans described people’s preferences and needs in relevant areas, including communication, and they were encouraged to be as independent as possible. People’s end of life care was discussed and planned and their wishes had been respected.

People were encouraged to express their views and had completed surveys. They also said they felt listened to and any concerns or issues they raised were addressed. Technology, such as sensor mats, were used to assist people’s care provision. People's individual needs were met by the adaptation of the premises.

Staff were asked for their opinions on the service and whether they were happy in their work. They felt supported within their roles, describing an ‘open door’ management approach, where

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 April 2018

The service was safe.

The provider used safe recruitment practices and there were enough skilled and experienced staff to ensure people were safe and cared for.

People were protected from abuse.

Potential risks to people were identified, assessed and planned for.

Medicines were managed and administered safely. The service was clean and infection control protocols were followed.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 April 2018

The service was effective.

People spoke highly of members of staff and were supported by staff who received appropriate training and supervision.

People were supported to maintain their hydration and nutritional needs. Their health was monitored and staff responded when health needs changed. People's individual needs were met by the adaptation of the premises.

Staff had a firm understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 April 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and caring staff.

People were involved in the planning of their care and offered choices in relation to their care and treatment.

People�s privacy and dignity were respected and their independence was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 April 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans accurately recorded people�s likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff had information that enabled them to provide support in line with people�s wishes.

People were supported to take part in meaningful activities. People's end of life care was discussed and planned and their wishes had been respected.

There was a system in place to manage complaints and comments. People felt able to make a complaint and were confident they would be listened to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 April 2018

The service was well-led.

People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the manager. The provider promoted an inclusive and open culture and recognised the importance of effective communication.

There were effective systems in place to assure quality and identify any potential improvements to the service being provided.

Forums were in place to gain feedback from staff and people. Feedback was regularly used to drive improvement.