Gleavewood Residential Care Home

Gleavewood Residential Care Home is a ‘care home’. The service is registered to accommodate up to 32 people. At the time of the inspection 26 people were living at the service some of whom were living with dementia.

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

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. People told us they felt safe and their relatives also found the service safe and well managed.

Risks to people's health, safety and well-being were effectively managed. Medicines were administered safely. The provider had effective infection prevention and control systems in place.

The provider had recruitment processes in place to ensure suitable staff were employed. People told us they felt safe when receiving support from staff. Staff were well trained in safeguarding and understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse.

Care plans had been reviewed regularly to ensure they were accurate. People and staff spoke positively about the management of the service who they felt were approachable, and always listened to their views. Systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service were in place and were well managed. The provider was open to improvement and listened and acted on feedback.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was rated good (published 06/04/2018)

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. We undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only. For those key question not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Gleavewood Residential Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

We found the following examples of good practice.

There were policies and procedures in place to manage risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic which were regularly reviewed and updated. These included the management of people with a COVID-19 positive diagnosis, staffing, visitors and PPE.

People living in the home and their family were supported to maintain contact. This included designated essential carers. Residents had a contact and visitors plan in place. Visiting was by appointment only. In the event of COVID-19 visit restrictions people were supported to maintain contact by the telephone and video calls.

The home had good supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for staff and visitors to use. Hand sanitiser and PPE was readily available throughout the service. Staff had received updated training on the use of PPE, and we observed staff wearing it correctly during our inspection. Clear signage and information were in place throughout the home to remind staff and visitors of their responsibilities.

A programme of regular COVID-19 testing for both people in the home, staff, essential carers and visitors to the home was implemented. All visitors, including visiting professionals were subject to a range of screening procedures, including showing evidence of vaccination and a negative lateral flow test before entry into the home was allowed. Agency staff used were subject to the same testing and vaccination programme as the home staff. This was checked prior to entry to the home and working; however, this was not always fully documented.

The home appeared clean and hygienic throughout. Daily cleaning schedules were implemented by housekeepers. These have been reviewed and enhanced. All staff were involved in undertaking extra cleaning throughout the day and night.

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 managers were always available to discuss suggestions and address problems or concerns.