Glynn Court Residential Home

Updated 24 March 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014. We brought our scheduled inspection forward due to concerns we had identified at another of the homes run by the provider so that we could check people at Glynn Court were not at risk of harm. We found Glynn Court was overall a good service.

The inspection was carried out on 12 and 16 February 2018 by a lead inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is someone who has personal experience of using, or caring for a person who uses this type of service. The inspection was unannounced.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service including previous inspection reports and notifications. Notifications are events that happen in the home which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We used this information to help us decide what areas to focus on during our inspection.

We spoke with eight people who lived at the home and with three relatives who were visiting. We observed people being supported during both days of the inspection to help us understand their experiences. We spoke with three members of care staff, the cook, the housekeeper, the maintenance personnel and both registered managers. We also spoke with two healthcare professionals who were visiting.

We looked at three people’s care records and pathway tracked their care. Pathway tracking enables us to follow people’s care and to check they had received all the care and support they required. We looked at records related to the running of the home, including incident and accident records, complaints, medicines records, three staff recruitment records, six staff training and appraisal records and systems for monitoring the quality of the service provided.

This was the first comprehensive inspection of Glynn Court under the new provider, Oakray (Glynn Court) Limited.

Updated 24 March 2018

Glynn Court Residential Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation, nursing and/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. The home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 31 older people some of whom were living with dementia and/or physical health needs. At the time of our inspection there were 27 people living at the home. The main house accommodation is split over two floors. Most of the bedrooms are on the ground floor with a staircase and chairlift to two first floor bedrooms and a bathroom. There is a large lounge and separate dining room on the ground floor. There is also a separate two storey house with six bedrooms and a lounge for people who are able to live more independently. The home has a large garden which is accessible for people who have mobility needs.

The inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 12 February 2018 by a lead inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is someone who has experience of using, or caring for someone who uses this type of service. The lead inspector returned on 16 February 2018 to complete the inspection.

There were two registered managers in place who jointly managed the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.

People were protected from abuse. Staff knew how to identify abuse and how to report any concerns. People, their relatives, staff and healthcare professionals told us they thought people were safe.

Recruitment procedures were safe and ensured only suitable staff were employed. Sufficient staff were deployed during each shift to keep people safe and meet their needs.

People’s medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines from staff who were trained and regularly checked for their competency to do so.

Risks relating to people’s health and welfare had been identified and assessed and measures were in place to reduce these. Environmental risks were assessed and urgent maintenance issues were attended to promptly. Some minor repairs and redecoration was required. The registered managers and maintenance staff were waiting to hear if an increase in maintenance hours had been approved by the provider. Plans to manage emergency evacuations were in place and understood by staff.

People’s rights were protected because staff understood and followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Deprivation of liberty safeguards had been submitted to the local authority for authorisation when required.

People were supported to maintain their health and well-being and had access to a range of health care services, such as GPs, opticians and chiropodists, when required. Other specialist advice was requested to support people with specific condition, such as diabetes and swallowing difficulties.

Staff received regular training, supervision and appraisal which included observations of their practice. This ensured they remained competent to support people effectively.

People had a choice of nutritious food and drink that met their specific dietary needs and preferences. When appropriate, staff provided physical assistance to people to eat in a calm and unhurried manner.

Staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect. Staff knew people and their relatives well and visitors were made welcome at any time.

Care plans included details of people’s life histories and personal preferences about how they would like to receive their care. People and their relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care.

People were encouraged to take part in a range of activities which included quizzes and games.

The provider was working towards meeting the Accessible Information Standard. Staff used a variety of ways to communicate with people such as pictures, gestures and body language which supported informed decision making.

Systems, such as spot checks and audits, were in place to monitor and assess the quality and safety of the care provided and drive improvement. There were informal opportunities for people and relatives to feedback their views about their care. People and relatives knew who to speak to if they had a complaint.

There was a positive, supportive and open culture within the home. Staff felt supported and involved in the development of the service. The registered managers understood their responsibilities to notify CQC of relevant events in the service.