Glebe Rd

Glebe Road is a care home registered to provide accommodation to a maximum of 6 younger adults whose primary needs relate to their mental health. At the time of our inspection 4 people lived at the home and 2 people were on planned leave. Each person has their own flat and there is a communal area for people to meet up and socialise.

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

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. We considered this guidance as there were people using the service who have a learning disability and or who are autistic.

Right Support

Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff were recruited safely and in line with the provider’s policy.

Right Care

People received personalised care from staff who knew them well and ensured their rights and dignity were promoted and protected. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe and protect from harm. Risks associated with people’s care were well managed.

Right Culture

The registered manager promoted a positive culture where support and care of people was the highest priority. The staff team worked in partnership with other professionals to achieve good outcomes for people. Staff felt valued and supported by the provider.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 7 March 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted due to concerns received in relation to the quality of care provided to people and the culture of the service. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions safe and well led only. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has remained good.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the safe and well led sections of this full report.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Glebe Road 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.

Glebe Road 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. Glebe Road is registered to provide accommodation to a maximum of six younger adults with mental health conditions. Each person at the home has their own bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and living space. The home also has a communal area for people to sit together and socialise.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

People told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them, and we saw people were comfortable with staff. Staff received training in how to safeguard people from abuse and were supported by the provider who ensured staff followed safeguarding policies and procedures. Staff understood what action they should take in order to protect people from abuse. Risks to people’s safety were identified, minimised and flexed towards individual needs so people could be supported in the least restrictive way possible and build their independence.

People were supported with their medicines by staff who were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines safely. People were encouraged to take their own medicines where they were able to do so. Staff recorded medicines administration according to the provider’s policy and procedure, and checks were in place to ensure medicines were managed safely.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs effectively. The provider conducted pre-employment checks prior to staff starting work, to ensure their suitability to support people. Staff told us they had not been able to work until these checks had been completed.

People told us staff asked for consent before providing them with support. People were able to make their own decisions and staff respected their right to do so. Staff and the registered manager had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People and a relative told us staff were respectful and treated people with dignity. We observed this during interactions between people, and records confirmed how people’s privacy and dignity was maintained. People were supported to make choices about their day to day lives. For example, they were supported to maintain any activities, interests and relationships that were important to them.

People had access to health care professionals when needed and care records showed support provided was in line with what had been recommended. People’s care records were written in a way which helped staff to deliver personalised care and gave staff information about people’s communication, their likes, dislikes and preferences. People were involved in how their care and support was delivered.

People and a relative told us they felt able to raise any concerns with the registered manager. They felt these would be listened to and responded to effectively and in a timely way. People and staff told us the management team were approachable and responsive to their ideas and suggestions. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the support provided, and the provider ensured people were at the centre of developing the service. The provider ensured that recommended actions from quality assurance checks were clearly documented and acted upon by the registered manager during their regular unannounced visits to the home.

Glebe Rd is registered to provide accommodation to a maximum of six people with learning disabilities and mental health conditions. There were six people staying at the home at the time of our inspection. Each person at the home had their own bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and living space. The home also had a number of communal areas for people to sit together and socialise.

A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have a registered manager. 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. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager at the service. However, the registered manager was not available on the day of our inspection for us to talk with. We spoke with the deputy manager and area manager on the day of our inspection.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe with staff, and staff treated them well. The managers and staff understood how to protect people they supported from abuse, and knew what procedures to follow to report any concerns.

There were enough staff at Glebe Rd to support people safely and provide people with support to go out. The provider had recruitment procedures in place that made sure staff were of a suitable character to care for people safely.

Medicines were stored and administered safely, and people received their prescribed medicines as intended. People were supported to attend health appointments when they needed to, and received healthcare that supported them to maintain their wellbeing.

People and their relatives thought staff were kind and responsive to people’s needs, and people’s privacy and dignity was respected.

Management and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), and supported people in line with these principles. People were able to make everyday decisions themselves, which helped them to develop and maintain their independence.

People were supported to go out in their local community when they wished. Activities, interests and hobbies were arranged according to people’s individual preferences, needs and abilities. People who lived at Glebe Rd were encouraged to maintain links with friends and family who visited them at the home when invited.

Staff, people and their relatives felt the registered manager was approachable. Positive communication was encouraged and identified concerns were acted upon by the registered manager and provider. Staff were supported by their manager through regular meetings and were given opportunities to provide feedback to the management team. Staff felt their training and induction supported them to meet the needs of people they cared for.

People told us they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. The provider monitored complaints to identify any trends and patterns, and made changes to the service in response to complaints.

People were supported to develop the service they received by providing feedback about how the home was run. The provider acted on the feedback they received to improve things.

There were procedures in place to check the quality of care people received, and where issues had been identified, the provider acted to make improvements.

During this inspection we spoke with the service manager, the deputy manager, the staff on duty and a person who used the service. We also spoke via telephone with a relative of a person who used the service.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our findings during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and care for people, however great emphasis is placed on supporting people to be independent whilst at the same time providing care and support to people as they progress through their metal health recovery.

Is the service safe?

A person and a relative we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care and support provided by staff working for the service. They said, "We feel he is safe" and "It is my first time away from home, but I feel safe and comfortable here."

Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Staff had received training in safeguarding and were aware of their role in ensuring people were kept safe. The manager was aware of their responsibilities for reporting safeguarding concerns under local multi agency protocols.

Is the service effective?

Full assessments were carried out with people and used to assist in compiling their care and support plans. These were evaluated on a monthly basis and formally reviewed on a six monthly basis.

Information in people's support records was detailed and up to date. Support plans and risk assessments were reflective of people's assessed needs. These records clearly demonstrated how people had been involved in planning their recovery journey and support needs. They showed how people were progressing in the areas they had identified.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff were kind and friendly towards people, and responded positively to their requests for support. A relative told us they were, "Impressed with the way the staff responded to X's needs." A person who used the service told us, "The staff are nice; I think I've met them all and they all seem kind."

Is the service responsive?

Systems and processes were in place to monitor and manage accidents and incidents. The provider took steps to ensure that learning from accidents and incidents took place across the organisation to ensure any future occurrences were minimised.

People were able to approach the manager and staff freely to discuss any concerns or worries they may have. We observed positive relationships between people, the staff and the manager which promoted a positive environment for people.

The service was staffed on a 24 hour basis which meant that any emergencies that arose could be dealt with immediately.

Is the service well led?

There were processes and systems in place to monitor the service provided. The manager used the information gathered through these processes to assess and improve the quality of service for people.