You are here

Glendale Residential Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 14 February 2019

About the service:

Glendale Residential Care Home is a ‘care home’ which accommodates up to 20 people in one adapted building. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time of our inspection there were 14 people living at the service.

Rating at last inspection: Inadequate (Published 6 September 2018). The service was placed in special measures.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up:

We previously inspected Glendale in July 2018 where the service was rated ‘Inadequate’ and placed in special measures. This was because we found that since our inspection in March 2017 where the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’ there had been a deterioration in the quality of care with a continued lack of action to reduce the risk of harm to people who used the service. There was a continued breach of Regulations 12 and further breaches of Regulations 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This service has been in Special Measures. Services that are in Special Measures are kept under review and inspected again within six months. We expect services to make significant improvements within this timeframe. During this inspection the service demonstrated to us that improvements have been made and is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is now out of Special Measures.

People’s experience of using this service:

People’s medicines were managed safely. However, further work was needed to ensure accurate records of carry forward medicines from one month’s cycle to another were maintained.

People’s safety had been considered and risks had been reduced by the introduction of revised guidance, risk management systems and improved systems of auditing. This included improved systems to identify and actions to reduce the risk of harm including responding to safeguarding incidents. All staff had been provided with updated training in safeguarding people from the risk of abuse.

We have made a recommendation about the management of some of the medicines, use of good practice guidance for kitchen audits, and that people’s spiritual and cultural needs be reviewed.

Improvements had been made to provide staff with regular, planned supervision to enable them to discuss their work performance and identify any training and development needs.

All care plans had been reviewed and systems put in place to enable ongoing review with people’s changing needs updated in a timely manner.

People told us they were satisfied with the quality and variety of food they were provided with. Those at risk of inadequate food and fluid intake were monitored and referral for specialist support accessed when needed.

People told us staff treated them with kindness, dignity and were respectful of their choices.

The recent employment of an activities coordinator provided more group and one to one activities for people. However, further work was needed in planning to support people who wanted regular access to the community.

Systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service had improved. A range of regular checks had been carried out by the manager with actions and timescales recorded where improvements were needed. However, whilst we were told the registered manager visited the service on a regular basis, they did not record any formal monitoring of the service. Further work was needed to ensure effective oversight of the service with overall planning for improvement at all levels of the organisation.

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 any concerning information is received,

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 February 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 February 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 February 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our findings below.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 14 February 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 14 February 2019

The service was not always well led.

Details are in our findings below.