The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Glendale

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

138 Stockton Road, Hartlepool, Cleveland, TS25 5AX (01429) 271366

Provided and run by:
Voyage 1 Limited

All Inspections

8 August 2017

During a routine inspection

Glendale is a detached bungalow set in its own large gardens in a residential district close to the centre of Hartlepool. Glendale provides residential care services for up to four people with learning or physical disabilities. There were three people using the service during our inspection. The provider has recently applied to the Commission to increase occupancy at a similar service nearby with a view to closing Glendale soon.

At the last inspection on 27 May 2015 the service was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

Staffing levels were appropriate for the needs of people who used the service. Risk assessments relating to people's individual care needs and the environment were reviewed regularly. Medicines were administered safely and stored securely. Accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns were recorded and dealt with appropriately.

Staff received appropriate training and support. 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 supported this practice. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and attend appointments with healthcare professionals.

There was a welcoming and homely atmosphere at the service. People were at ease with staff and relatives said staff were caring. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion.

Staff had a clear understanding of people's needs and how they liked to be supported. People's independence was encouraged without unnecessary risks to their safety. Support plans were well written and specific to people's individual needs.

Relatives felt the service was well managed. Staff described the manager as approachable. There was an effective quality assurance system in place to ensure the quality of the service and to drive improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

27 May 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected Glendale on 27 May 2015. This was an announced inspection. We informed the registered provider at short notice (the day before) that we would be visiting to inspect. We did this because the location is a small care home for people who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Glendale is a detached bungalow set in its own large gardens in a residential district close to the centre of Hartlepool. The location is registered to provide residential accommodation for up to four people with learning disabilities who require personal care.

At the time of the inspection the registered manager was on planned long-term leave. In the interim an acting manager had been appointed and they had applied to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 were protected by the services approach to safeguarding and whistle blowing. People who used the service told us they felt safe and could tell staff if they were unhappy. People who used the service told us that staff treated them well and they were happy with the care and service received. Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures, could describe what they would do if they thought somebody was being mistreated and said that management acted appropriately to any concerns brought to their attention.

Staff told us that they felt supported. There was a regular programme of staff supervision and appraisal in place. Records of supervision were detailed and showed that the acting manager had worked with staff to identify their personal and professional development.

Staff had been trained and had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people they cared for. There was enough staff on duty to provide support and ensure that their needs were met.

Staff had received receiving training and demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS). Appropriate documentation was available within people’s care records. This included capacity assessments, DoLS authorisations and best interest decisions.

We found that safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. This included obtaining references from previous employers to show staff employed were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Appropriate systems were in place for the management of medicines so that people received their medicines safely.

People who used the service and a relative we spoke with told us that staff were caring and treated people well, respected their privacy and encouraged their independence. Our observations showed staff and people who used the service comfortable together and interacting in a friendly and caring way. For example, staff explaining things carefully and encouraging people to be independent where possible.

People’s needs were assessed and their care needs planned in a person centred way. We saw that risks identified with care and support had been included within the care and support plans.

People’s nutritional needs were met, with people being involved in shopping and decisions about meals. People who used the service told us that they got enough to eat and drink and that staff asked what people wanted.

People were supported to maintain their health, including access to specialist health and social care practitioners when needed. People who used the service had regular appointments with the community nursing team and social care professionals. Other professionals were also involved in people’s care such as chiropodists, opticians, nurses, GPs and dentists.

People’s independence was encouraged and their hobbies and leisure interests were individually assessed. There was a plentiful supply of activities both in and out of the home for people to take part in. Staff encouraged and supported people to access activities within the community.

The registered provider had a system in place for responding to people’s concerns and complaints. People who used the service had complex needs and were unable to understand the service’s complaint procedure because of this people were encouraged to share their views with staff on a daily basis and at meetings.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Staff told us that the service had an open, inclusive and positive culture.

14 October 2013

During a routine inspection

During the visit, we met all four people who used the service. People had limited verbal skills and found it difficult to make direct comments about many aspects of the service therefore we spent time observing the practice. This was a routine visit and we looked at how people were enabled to make decisions about their care; what the care was like; and how the home was run.

We spoke to staff and found that they were very knowledgeable about people's likes and dislikes and how they wished to be supported. We were able to see how people's skills and independence were promoted. We saw that staff were very caring and supportive of people.

The people living and working in Glendale were both warm and welcoming.

Where people were highlighted as being at risk, for example, with epilepsy, care plans had been developed. We found that care records contained up to date assessments, care plans and risk assessments. We found that care plans were reviewed monthly.

We looked at three of the four sets of care records. We found that the care records contained evidence to confirm that the person and their relative or advocate had been involved in drawing up the plan of care and keeping it up to date. Staff told us how they involved people and their relatives in developing care plans and how they shared their ideas about care and support.

We saw that people who used the service had a choice of food and drink and were involved in menu planning and shopping for food.

People's health, safety and welfare were protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment,

We found that people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because records were maintained.

18 October 2012

During a routine inspection

During the visit, we met all four people who used the service. People had limited verbal skills and found it difficult to make direct comments about many aspects of the service therefore we spent time observing the practice. This was a routine visit and we looked at how people were enabled to make decisions about their care; what the care was like; and how the home was run. One person told us that they liked the home and the staff.

From our observations, we found that the care staff worked in ways that supported the people in a sensitive manner. Staff discussed people with a sense of genuine warmth and told us the home was run much like a large family. We found that staff had a good understanding of how to best meet each person's care needs. We saw that staff respected the people who used the service and involved each person in the general conversations and always sought their views.

We talked with four staff who were on duty about people's ability to make decisions. We found that the staff used positive risk taking practices and understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff actively involved family members in designing their relatives care and when appropriate sough the input of advocates.

We found that the home was well-maintained and people were involved in making choices about how their bedrooms were decorated. The new manager had ensured maintenance plans were in place and made sure repairs were completed in a timely manner.

25 April 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

The visit took place because we were following up concerns we had raised during the last inspection in February 2012.

People living at the home had complex needs and most of the people were unable to communicate verbally their views and experiences to us. We were able to observe people's experiences of living in the home and their interactions with each other and the staff.

On the day of this visit, some people were out of the home doing activities in the community. Some people were spending time within the home, before going to the library later in the morning. We saw staff treated people with respect. Staff used their knowledge of the person to interpret body language and limited verbal communication, to take note of people's opinions, choices and preferences.

6 February 2012

During a routine inspection

People living at the home had complex needs and most of the people were unable to communicate verbally their views and experiences to us. We were able to observe people's experiences of living in the home and their interactions with each other and the staff.

We observed staff encourage people to make their own decisions. People were actively involved in making decisions about the activities they wanted to do, what they wanted for lunch and whether they wanted more to eat or drink. Staff used their knowledge of the person to interpret body language and limited verbal communication, to take note of people's opinions, choices and preferences. People were encouraged to make healthy choices for themselves, and where appropriate were encouraged to be involved in making their own meals.

One person using the service told us "I am happy here. I like making Valentines Day cards and I made one this morning. I like making my own meals. I go to the Hourglass club on Mondays, where I dance and take part in the raffle."