This inspection was carried out on 30 October 2014. It was an unannounced inspection and was undertaken by two inspectors.
Glennfield Care Centre provides accommodation, support and care, including nursing care, for up to 88 adults and older people, some of whom have mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were 84 people living in the home.
At our previous inspection on 07 July 2013 we found the provider to be meeting all the regulations that we looked at.
At the time of our inspection the home had 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 Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation on Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. We found that people’s rights were being protected and DOLs applications were in progress. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant that they were working within the law when they cared for people who lacked the capacity to make their own decisions. We saw that there were policies and procedures in relation to the MCA and DoLS to ensure that people, who could not make decisions for themselves were protected.
There was process in place to ensure that people’s health care needs were assessed, so that care was planned and delivered in a consistent way. Staff were seen to support each person according to their individual needs. This included people at risk of malnutrition or dehydration who were being supported to have sufficient quantities to eat and drink.
We saw that staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. They knocked on people’s bedroom doors and waited for a response before entering. On entering they asked people if everything was alright and if they needed anything.
People confirmed they were able to participate in a variety of chosen hobbies and interests and were able to change their minds if they did not wish to take part in these.
There was a complaints process in place which was available in the entrance hall to people, relatives and others who used and visited the service. Regular meetings were held for people and their relatives to provide them with an opportunity to provide their view about the home and to receive information about what was happening in the future.
The provider had clear recruitment process in place that were being followed. Records we looked at and staff we spoke with confirmed that staff were only employed within the home after all essential safety checks had been satisfactorily completed. This meant that only people suitable for the role were employed.
The provider had an effective quality assurance system in place to monitor and improve the quality of care that was provided. There was a programme of audits that involved people who used the service, families, health care professionals and others on a regular basis.