Archived: Glebe House

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. We spoke with the manager, the deputy manager, four care staff and three people who lived at the home. In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at the time of our inspection. Their name appears because they were still the manager on our register at the time. The new manager had been in post on a temporary basis since February 2014. They were due to take up a permanent position on 7 July 2014 and were in the process of submitting their application for registration. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities in following the policies and procedures of the service to keep people safe. Staff confirmed they would report concerns under the whistleblowing policy. One staff member told us, "I may not feel comfortable doing it but it is something I would have to do as me ignoring it would be as bad as the person doing it."

The service's recruitment procedures ensured staff were safe to work with vulnerable people. There were processes in place to financially safeguard people's money.

We found improvements were needed to the environment so that it was clean, safe and well maintained for people.

The manager understood their obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). As a result of a recent court judgement the manager told us the need for any DoLS applications was under review.

Is the service effective?

Each person had a support plan and health action plan that had been developed from an assessment of their needs, choices and capabilities. Where risks had been identified, assessments had been carried out to support staff in managing those risks to deliver care safely. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's needs and healthcare history.

We saw staff were vigilant in recognising triggers for behaviours in order to keep people safe. Staff appeared calm and confident when dealing with people.

Is the service caring?

We saw where people had no or limited verbal communication, there was information in their records about how they communicated through body language. We observed a member of staff communicating with one person using Makaton (a form of sign language). They clearly understood the person who responded positively to them. One person told us, "I like all the staff. They are polite."

Is the service responsive?

The service consulted other healthcare professionals if there was a change in people's needs.

People were able to participate in a range of activities both in the home and in the local community. We saw one person went swimming and another to the shops on the day of our visit. One person helped staff prepare the evening meal.

One person wanted to reduce the number of cigarettes they smoked. We observed a member of staff discussing different strategies with the person that would assist them in achieving their goal.

Is the service well-led?

After a period of instability in the service, a new manager had been appointed. Staff spoke positively about the new management team. One member of staff told us, "The door is always open and you don't have to wait for supervision. They make it easy for you to talk to them about anything.' Another staff member said, 'It is really good. I know we have had a change of management team recently, but now we can see improvements and things being done.'

There were processes and systems in place to monitor the service provided. We saw some of these processes were not fully effective in ensuring people received the quality of service they should expect.

People were happy with the care provided and said they felt safe. One person said they liked living at Glebe House because the staff were, 'So great.' Another person told us they, 'Loved going to college' and that staff helped them do, 'Lots of things.' We saw that Glebe House was homely. People made drinks and snacks and dressed how they wanted. We observed that staff were considerate in their approach and communicated through sign language with people according to their needs.

We saw that risk assessments and care plans were in place and updated to ensure people received the care they needed. We saw that there were quality management processes in place. Some audits and quality checks needed improvement but there was a plan in place to address this. There was evidence that people who use the service and their families knew how to raise issues if they needed to.

There were systems in place to ensure that staff were recruited appropriately and supported with training and guidance by the provider. Staff were satisfied with the training provided and had attended training relevant to people's needs. Staff we met showed a good knowledge of the service and told us they enjoyed their job. One person said, 'I really love it here' and another told us they would not want to work anywhere else.