Glendale

We found the following examples of good practice.

• The home locked down early and is still closed to many people, for example hairdressers. Relatives did not come into the home unless they were visiting someone at the end of their life. Relatives could visit people in a secluded area of the garden where there was a gazebo with a personal protective equipment (PPE) station inside. There was an appointments system in place with half hour time slots, and a maximum of two people at each visit. Visitors wore masks and understood the procedures in place to keep people safe. All visitors had a risk assessment in place.

• People moving into the service were required to have a negative test for COVID-19 before admission and self-isolate for 14 days. Staff used this time to get to know the person and their allocated care worker offered one to one sessions for emotional wellbeing support. After 14 days, if they were symptom free, they were introduced to their neighbours and a welcome tea party was held.

• There was a dedicated housekeeping team and revised cleaning schedules were in place. The service followed good practice guidance for linen and laundry. There was a dedicated laundry assistant with a rota in place. Everyone living in the service had their laundry done individually; there was no mixing of clothing or bedding.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

Staff were aware of safeguarding processes and how to report abuse. People told us they felt safe and there were enough staff to meet their needs. Risks to people were appropriately identified and managed. Medicine administration and recording was safe, as were infection control practices. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored for trends.

Pre-assessments were robust to ensure that people’s needs could be met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff were aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people’s rights were protected. Staff were up to date with training that was relevant to their roles and had regular supervision with their line manager. People were supported to maintain their health, nutritional and hydration needs.

People were treated with kindness and respect, and the registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs. People’s privacy and independence was respected and promoted. People were supported to help express their opinions.

People received personalised care and were able to personalise their rooms. The environment was set up to meet the needs of people living with dementia. There were areas dedicated to people’s earlier interests or things that were important to them. People were supported to maintain their faith. End of life care plans expressed people’s individual last wishes.

There was a positive and friendly culture within the service amongst staff and people. People and relatives said that the new registered manager was approachable, and staff said they felt valued. The provider had plans to improve the service and actively sought feedback from people, relatives and staff. There were quality governance systems in place to identify any issues which were resolved in a timely manner. People were supported to raise complaints and these were investigated and actions taken. There was strong engagement with a range of external stakeholders.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The inspection took place on the 9 June 2016 and was unannounced.

A registered manager was in post who was present throughout the inspection. 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 and their relatives gave positive feedback about the service they or their family member received. People were very happy.

People said that they felt safe and they appeared happy and at ease in the presence of staff. One person said; “The staff are kind, I feel safe.” We saw staff had written information about risks to people and how to manage these in order to keep people safe.

People benefited from a safe service where staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and were able to tell us about the different types of abuse and signs a person may show if they were being harmed. Staff knew the procedures to follow to raise an alert should they have any concerns or suspect abuse may have occurred.

Incidents and accident were fully investigated by the registered manager, and actions put in place to reduce the risk to people of accidents happening again such as people falling.

People received their medicines as they were prescribed and when they needed them. Processes were in place in relation to the correct storage, disposal and auditing of people’s medicines.

Care was provided to people by a sufficient number of staff who were appropriately trained and deployed. People did not have to wait to be assisted.

Staff recruitment processes were robust and helped ensure the provider only employed suitable staff to care for people.

People and their families had been included in planning and agreeing to the care provided. We saw that people had an individual plan, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided. Staff ensured people had access to healthcare professionals when needed.

People said that they consented to the care they received. The home was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People said that they were involved in making decisions about their care as much as they wanted to be.

Staff had the specialist training they needed in order to keep up to date with care for people. Staff demonstrated best practice in their approach to the care, treatment and support people received.

People were provided with a choice of freshly cooked meals each day and facilities were available for staff to make or offer people snacks at any time during the day or night. Specialist diets to meet medical or religious or cultural needs were provided where necessary.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff took time to speak with the people who they supported. We observed some positive interactions and it was evident people enjoyed talking to staff. People were able to see their friends and families as they wanted and there were no restrictions on when relatives and friends could visit.

People’s views were obtained by holding residents’ meetings and sending out an annual satisfaction survey. People knew how to make a complaint. Complaint procedures were up to date and people and relatives told us they would know how to make a complaint if they needed to. The policy was in an easy to read format to help people and relatives know how to make a complaint if they wished. Staff knew how to respond to a complaint should one be received.

People were at the heart of the service. The provider's philosophy, vision and values were understood and shared across the staff team.

The provider had quality assurance systems in place, including regular audits on health and safety, infection control and medication. The registered manager met CQC registration requirements by sending in notifications when appropriate. We found both care and staff records were stored securely and confidentially.

We found that care was person centred, planned and delivered safely with regular reviews in order to ensure that care was appropriate to needs. People's care was planned and delivered according to their assessed needs and that care workers understood their roles.

We found that people were safeguarded against risk and abuse by knowledgeable, trained and committed care workers. Staff had received regular training and support in order to provide high quality person-centred care. We saw that staff had appropriate qualifications and experience in order to meet the care needs of the people.

We found that the provider had effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service, which took into account the views of the people, relatives and staff. We saw that the provider used this feedback to make service improvements.