Updated 2 February 2021
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.
The inspection took place on 21 January 2021.
Updated 2 February 2021
The inspection took place on 19 March 2018 and was unannounced. The last inspection was undertaken on 22 September 2015 and the service was rated Good at that inspection.
Glenbank 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.
Glenbank Care Home accommodates 24 people in one adapted building. Accommodation is provided on three floors, each having bathroom and toilet facilities. A passenger lift provides access to all floors.
The home is situated on a bus route providing access to Bolton and Horwich town centres. There is a large enclosed garden, and the home overlooks a lodge and conservation area.
There was a registered manager at the home. 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 at the home. The service had an appropriate safeguarding policy and staff had undertaken safeguarding training.
Health and safety records were in place and regular checks undertaken. Accidents and incidents were recorded and there were individual and general risk assessments in place.
Staffing levels were consistent and flexible and staff recruitment was robust.
Medicines systems were safe and staff had undertaken appropriate training in medicines administration.
Care files included a range of information about people’s health needs and monitoring charts, where required, were in place and up to date.
There was a thorough induction in place for new staff and training was on-going. Systems were in place to ensure staff had regular supervisions and annual appraisals.
The service was working within the legal requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Staff were respectful, friendly and kind when interacting with people who used the service. People who used the service were well presented and looked happy and content.
People were included in their care planning and reviews and residents’ and relatives’ meetings were held regularly. Relevant information about the service was available for people to read.
People told us the service was responsive to their needs. Staff went out of their way to assist people. Care plans were person-centred, regularly reviewed and included information about people’s likes and dislikes. There were a number of activities and outings on offer at the home.
There were advanced care plans which outlined people’s wishes for when they were nearing the end of their lives. Some staff had undertaken end of life care training.
There was an appropriate complaints procedure which was displayed around the home. There had been no recent complaints received.
The service had a registered manager who demonstrated a commitment to ensuring people’s experience of the service was positive. Staff we spoke with told us they were well supported by management and each other.
The registered manager/provider was involved with a number of initiatives and meetings within the local area including taking a lead role within the local Care Home Excellence programme, being part of a task and finish group and taking part in a falls prevention pilot scheme.
A quality assurance tool was used to gather information from people who used the service and there were a number of audits in evidence. All audits were analysed for patterns and trends and informed continual improvement to service delivery.