Glendale 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. At the time of our inspection there were 57 people living at the service who had a range of needs including living with dementia.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and 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.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

Staff were aware of safeguarding processes and how to report abuse. People told us they felt safe and there were enough staff to meet their needs. Risks to people were appropriately identified and managed. Medicine administration and recording was safe, as were infection control practices. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored for trends.

Pre-assessments were robust to ensure that people’s needs could be met. 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 support this practice. Staff were aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people’s rights were protected. Staff were up to date with training that was relevant to their roles and had regular supervision with their line manager. People were supported to maintain their health, nutritional and hydration needs.

People were treated with kindness and respect, and the registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs. People’s privacy and independence was respected and promoted. People were supported to help express their opinions.

People received personalised care and were able to personalise their rooms. The environment was set up to meet the needs of people living with dementia. There were areas dedicated to people’s earlier interests or things that were important to them. People were supported to maintain their faith. End of life care plans expressed people’s individual last wishes.

There was a positive and friendly culture within the service amongst staff and people. People and relatives said that the new registered manager was approachable, and staff said they felt valued. The provider had plans to improve the service and actively sought feedback from people, relatives and staff. There were quality governance systems in place to identify any issues which were resolved in a timely manner. People were supported to raise complaints and these were investigated and actions taken. There was strong engagement with a range of external stakeholders.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Glendale provides care and accommodation for up to 61 people. On the day of our inspection 57 people were living in the home.There were 12 people receiving care and support in four of the living areas of the home and 13 people in the fifth area. Many of the people were living with dementia.

The inspection took place on the 9 June 2016 and was unannounced.

A registered manager was in post who was present throughout the inspection. 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 and their relatives gave positive feedback about the service they or their family member received. People were very happy.

People said that they felt safe and they appeared happy and at ease in the presence of staff. One person said; “The staff are kind, I feel safe.” We saw staff had written information about risks to people and how to manage these in order to keep people safe.

People benefited from a safe service where staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and were able to tell us about the different types of abuse and signs a person may show if they were being harmed. Staff knew the procedures to follow to raise an alert should they have any concerns or suspect abuse may have occurred.

Incidents and accident were fully investigated by the registered manager, and actions put in place to reduce the risk to people of accidents happening again such as people falling.

People received their medicines as they were prescribed and when they needed them. Processes were in place in relation to the correct storage, disposal and auditing of people’s medicines.

Care was provided to people by a sufficient number of staff who were appropriately trained and deployed. People did not have to wait to be assisted.

Staff recruitment processes were robust and helped ensure the provider only employed suitable staff to care for people.

People and their families had been included in planning and agreeing to the care provided. We saw that people had an individual plan, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided. Staff ensured people had access to healthcare professionals when needed.

People said that they consented to the care they received. The home was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People said that they were involved in making decisions about their care as much as they wanted to be.

Staff had the specialist training they needed in order to keep up to date with care for people. Staff demonstrated best practice in their approach to the care, treatment and support people received.

People were provided with a choice of freshly cooked meals each day and facilities were available for staff to make or offer people snacks at any time during the day or night. Specialist diets to meet medical or religious or cultural needs were provided where necessary.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff took time to speak with the people who they supported. We observed some positive interactions and it was evident people enjoyed talking to staff. People were able to see their friends and families as they wanted and there were no restrictions on when relatives and friends could visit.

People’s views were obtained by holding residents’ meetings and sending out an annual satisfaction survey. People knew how to make a complaint. Complaint procedures were up to date and people and relatives told us they would know how to make a complaint if they needed to. The policy was in an easy to read format to help people and relatives know how to make a complaint if they wished. Staff knew how

During our inspection we spoke to both people and staff. We found that people were encouraged to express their opinions, preferences and views. We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect and were told by people that they were content and that the staff treated them with compassion.

We found that care was person centred, planned and delivered safely with regular reviews in order to ensure that care was appropriate to needs. People's care was planned and delivered according to their assessed needs and that care workers understood their roles.

We found that people were safeguarded against risk and abuse by knowledgeable, trained and committed care workers. Staff had received regular training and support in order to provide high quality person-centred care. We saw that staff had appropriate qualifications and experience in order to meet the care needs of the people.

We found that the provider had effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service, which took into account the views of the people, relatives and staff. We saw that the provider used this feedback to make service improvements.

People told us what it was like to live in Glendale. They described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people in care services were treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs were met.

The inspection team was led by a Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspector joined by an Expert by Experience, who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service, and a practising healthcare professional.

People using the service said that staff were polite and treated them with respect. They told us that staff knew their needs and how they liked things to be done. People told us that they could choose how they spent their time and had opportunities to be involved in activities. One person told us, “I have the choice to come and go as I please.”

A visiting relative told us that their family member was always treated with respect. The relative said that they had been encouraged by the home to contribute to their family member’s care plan and that the home always kept them informed about important events affecting their family member.

People told us that they enjoyed the food provided by the home and that they had choice in what they ate and flexibility in when they took their meals. They said that they could have alternatives to the advertised menu if they wished and that the catering manager regularly asked for feedback about the food provided. One person told us, “The food’s very good and there’s plenty of it.”

A visiting relative said that their family member enjoyed the food provided by the home. The relative told us, “The food’s good and they [people using the service] get plenty of choice.” Another relative told us that staff had worked with their family member to encourage them to eat following an illness. The relative said, “They tried so hard to get her to eat when she lost her appetite and, thanks to them, she’s really picking up now.”

People told us that they felt safe and well cared for at the home. None of the people we spoke with, or their relatives, had ever had any concerns about their treatment at the home. People said they would feel confident speaking to the manager or a member of staff if they were concerned about the way in which they or someone else was being treated.

People told us that staff were available when they needed them and that they provided good care. One person said, “It couldn’t be better. The staff are all very nice, very patient.” and another described the staff as “marvellous, very kind.”

The relatives we spoke with provided positive feedback about staff. One relative told us, “I think it’s very good here. The staff are excellent” and another said, “The staff are very, very good – they’re marvellous.”