Glendale Lodge

Updated 14 February 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.

This inspection took place on 08 and 11 January 2019, the first day of the inspection was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors and one expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require registered persons to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed the information we held about the service including previous inspection reports. We also looked at notifications about important events that had taken place in the service, which the provider is required to tell us by law. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

We spoke with 14 people about their experiences of living at the service and we observed care and support in communal areas. We observed staff interactions with people. We also spoke with four people’s relatives who visited the service. We spoke with eight staff, which included support workers, senior support workers, the deputy manager and the registered manager. We received positive feedback from a relative in writing during our inspection.

We requested information by email from local authority care managers, commissioners and Healthwatch to obtain feedback about their experience of the service. There is a local Healthwatch in every area of England. They are independent organisations who listen to people’s views and share them with those with the power to make local services better. Healthwatch told us they had not visited the service or received any comments or concerns since the last inspection. We did not receive any other feedback from health and social care professionals.

We looked at the provider’s records. These included five people’s care records, care plans, health records, risk assessments, daily care records and medicines records. We looked at two staff files, a sample of audits, satisfaction surveys, staff rotas, and policies and procedures.

We asked the registered manager to send additional information after the inspection visit, including training records and quality assurance audits. The information we requested was sent to us in a timely manner.

Updated 14 February 2019

The inspection took place on 08 and 11 January 2019, the first day of the inspection was unannounced.

Glendale Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing 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.

Glendale Lodge offers care and support for up to 30 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. The majority of bedrooms are on the ground floor and have en-suite bathrooms. The service is located on the outskirts of Deal overlooking countryside. At the time of our inspection there were 29 people using the service. Two people received most of their care in bed.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 had last been inspected on 15 June 2016 and was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good. We found one area of improvement within the Effective domain. 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.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff had not always supported people the least restrictive way possible. This was an area for improvement.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet and were given choice with their meals. Lunchtime meal choices did not always give people a second substantial main meal option. This was an area for improvement.

People’s needs and rights to equality had been assessed and care plans had been kept up to date when people’s needs changed. People and health and social care professionals involved in their care and support told us how their general health and wellbeing had improved since living at the service. Staff had the right induction, training and on-going support to do their job. People accessed the healthcare they needed, and staff worked closely with other organisations to meet their individual needs. People’s needs were met by the facilities.

Risks to people were assessed on an individual basis and there was comprehensive guidance for staff. People were kept safe from avoidable harm and could raise any concerns with the registered manager. There was enough suitably trained and safely recruited staff to meet people’s needs. People were protected from any environmental risks in a clean and well-maintained home. Lessons were learnt from accidents and incidents. People's medicines had been well managed, medicines were administered safely and there was clear guidance for staff on how to support people to take their medicines.

People told us that staff were caring and the management team ensured there was a culture which promoted treating people with kindness, respect and compassion. Staff were attentive to people. The service had received positive feedback and people were involved in their care as much as possible. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible. Visitors were made welcome.

People received personalised care which met their needs and care plans were person centred and up to date. Where known, people’s wishes around their end of life care were recorded. People were encouraged to take part in activities they liked. There had not been any complaints, but people could raise any concerns they had with the registered manager. The provider sought feedback from people and their relatives which was recorded and reviewed.

People were happy with the management of the service and staff understood the vision and values of the service promoted by the owners and management team. There was a positive, person centred and professional culture. The registered manager had good oversight of the quality and safety of the service, and risks were clearly understood and managed. This was supported by good record keeping, good communication and working in partnership with other health professionals. The management team promoted continuous learning by reviewing audits, feedback and incidents and making changes as a result.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.