We carried out a review of the data available to us about Glenlyn on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Glenlyn, you can give feedback on this service.
Glenlyn is a supported living service providing personal care. The service provides support to people who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, and sensory impairments. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of inspection only one person was receiving the regulated activity of personal care.
Glenlyn is a detached building with its own garden, people have their own rooms and share communal facilities such as kitchen, dining, lounge and bathroom areas. Staff are available on site 24 hours a day.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
We made a recommendation about recording mental capacity assessments.
Risks were assessed and care delivered in a way that ensured people’s safety and wellbeing. Measures were taken to ensure people were safe from abuse and from infection. Staff were recruited in a way which meant it was safe for people receiving care.
People were supported to make choices about their lives. Staff were suitably trained and understood people’s right to make their own decisions. People were supported with their dietary needs and made choices about food and drinks. One person told us they were happy with the care they received, “Yeah…it’s lovely”, and with the staff, saying “I’ve got certain favourites but overall, they’re fine.”
People were treated with dignity and respect by caring staff who knew them well and supported people to express their views. One person told us they knew how to raise a concern but “Don’t really see the point because there’s nothing I want to bring up.”
People’s care plans were personalised to reflect their individual needs and preferences. The way information was provided was adapted to meet the individual’s communication requirements. People were supported to raise concerns if they weren’t happy about something.
People were provided with high-quality person-centred care as a result of the leadership, management and governance of the service, which also promoted an open and fair culture.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (01 March 2019).
Why we inspected
We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
People’s experience of using this service:
• People told us they felt safe. A person said, “Yes I do feel safe. I feel very safe.” People were protected against avoidable harm, abuse, neglect and discrimination. The care they received was safe
• People were supported by a stable staff team who had been carefully recruited, trained and supervised. Staff knew people well and understood how to support people to remain safe and well. Staff were positive and enthusiastic about their jobs.
• People were supported by a caring staff team.
• Each person had a support plan in place which they had been involved in developing and consulted about. The plans provided good information about all aspects of people’s health, personal care and social needs and their support network.
• People were consulted and involved in the service. Their views were sought and valued. People felt able to speak out and raise any concerns or complaints, confident these would be addressed satisfactorily.
• The service ran smoothly. People and staff praised the registered manager and provider for the good management of the service. There were systems in place to monitor the service and make improvements where necessary.
Rating at last inspection: The service was previously inspected on 12 October 2016 when it was rated as Good.
Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection which was planned according to the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service until we return to visit in line with our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Give a summary of your findings for the service, highlighting what the service does well and drawing attention to areas where improvements could be made. Where a breach of regulation has been identified, summarise, in plain English, how the provider was not meeting the requirements of the law and state 'You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.' Please note that the summary section will be used to populate the CQC website. Providers will be asked to share this section with the people who use their service and the staff that work there.
Glenlyn is registered to provide care and support without nursing for younger adults with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. The service mainly provides care to people living in a supported living house, called Glenlyn. The majority of these people do not require personal care, but do need support with day to day activities. At the time of the inspection, one person was receiving personal care from Glenlyn staff. Glenlyn staff also provide some support to two people living in Exminster; however neither of these people receive personal care.
There was a manager in post who had been registered with the Care Quality Commission since August 2013. 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.
The service was previously inspected in January 2014 and was found compliant in all the regulations inspected.
Responses from people and staff to questionnaires sent by the Care Quality Commission prior to the inspection were very positive. Although we did not formally interview people who were not receiving personal care, we did meet them during the inspection. They all expressed very positive views about the staff and the care they received. Everyone we spoke with said how lovely the staff were and how well supported they felt. This included the person receiving personal care.
The atmosphere at Glenlyn was very positive and friendly with lots of laughter and friendly chat throughout the inspection. Staff were very caring and showed genuine compassion for people. For example, one member of staff had worked in their own time to find long-lost relatives in another country for a person. This had been really welcomed by the person, who was now in email contact with their family.
Risk assessments and care plans had been written which described the individual needs, risks and personal preferences of the person. These were kept up to date taking into account changes in the person’s needs or wants. People had been involved in developing their care plans and had signed to say they agreed with them. Staff were able to describe the information contained in the care plans and how they had delivered that care.
Staff were recruited safely, with checks carried out to ensure they were suitable before they started working at Glenlyn. Staff were provided an induction which included a range of training courses. These courses not only covered essential training, but also covered more specialist knowledge such as epilepsy awareness. Staff were knowledgeable about people and worked together to provide the person the support they needed and wanted.
There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs, both in terms of receiving personal care and to support their social needs. Staff worked flexibly as a team to ensure that people were able to do the activities they wanted or needed to do.
Staff encouraged people to maintain their independence by helping them to do activities by themselves. Staff showed respect to people and ensured their dignity was maintained and they were given privacy, for example when showering. People were supported to eat healthily and have sufficient drinks throughout the day for the health and well-being. People were also supported to manage their health needs by accessing health professionals including their GP, dentist and chiropodist.
People chose what activities they wanted to do, for example visiting local towns, going out for a game of pool as well as doing their domestic chores. People described how they were helped to do this by staff.
People were kept safe and supported by staff who clearly understood their role and were trained in how to recognise and report safeguarding issues. Where there were concerns, staff and the registered manager had taken appropriate action to address these. People were supported to take their medicines safely.
The registered manager and staff had a clear understanding of the vision and values of the provider and worked to deliver these. The registered manager was described very positively by people and staff. She described how she supported staff through supervision to deliver high quality care. The registered manager and staff undertook regular audits, including checks of medicine administration and care records to monitor the quality of the service. Where there were errors, action had taken place to address the concerns and improve the systems. The registered manager also regularly met with other managers and directors in the provider organisation to share ideas for service improvement.
The registered service's office was on the same site as supported living accommodation. Not everyone living there received a personal care service but they were supported by the staff who provided the registered service. People using the service had communication needs such that we could not get their views in detail. We thus met them but also observed some of the support they and others received from staff. We spoke with a service user's relative and three staff to get other views and information about the service.
We found that care was planned and delivered in ways intended to ensure people's safety and welfare, with the staff supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. Individuals were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken steps to identify the possibility of abuse and to prevent abuse from happening.
People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected and promoted. Their views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided in relation to their care.
There were systems to monitor the quality of the service people received. There were also systems to identify and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of those who used the service and others, such as the staff.