Glenview is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to people six people who have learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection five people were living there.

A registered manager was in post but owing to pre-arranged annual leave was not available on day one of this inspection. However, the registered manager was present during day two. 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.

At the last inspection the service was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

People continued to remain safe as staff knew how to recognise and respond to concerns of ill-treatment and abuse. There were enough staff to support people to meet their needs. The provider followed safe recruitment procedures when employing new staff members.

The provider followed infection prevention and control guidance. The equipment that people used was maintained and kept in safe working order.

The provider learnt from incidents and accidents and worked with people and families to minimise the risk of reoccurrence if things had gone wrong.

People continued to receive care that was effective and personalised to their individual needs and preferences. They were assisted by a staff team who were well supported and had the skills and training to effectively assist people.

People were supported to have choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Staff were aware of current guidance which informed their practice and people’s rights were protected by the staff who supported them.

People received support that continued to be caring and respectful. People were supported by a staff team that was compassionate, thoughtful and kind.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected by those providing assistance. People were supported at times of upset and distress.

People, and those close to them, continued to be involved in developing their own care and support plans. When changes occurred in people’s personal and medical circumstances, these plans were reviewed to reflect these changes. People’s individual preferences were known by staff members who supported them as they wished. People and their relatives were encouraged to raise any concerns or complaints. The provider had systems in place to address any issues raised with them.

Glenview continued to be well-led by a management team that people and staff found approachable and supportive. People were involved in decisions about their care and support and their suggestions were valued by the provider. Staff members believed their opinions and ideas were listened to by the provider and, if appropriate, implemented. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of service they provided and where necessary made changes to drive improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 4 February 2016 and was unannounced.

Glen View is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to people for six people who have learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection five people were living there.

A registered manager was in post and was present during our 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 were protected from harm and abuse by staff who had been trained and understood how to support people in a way that protected them.

There were enough staff to support people and to meet their needs. The provider had systems in place to adapt to the changing needs of people and to make provision for additional staffing. Before staff could start work the provider undertook checks to ensure they were safe to work with people.

People were supported to receive their medicines by staff who were trained to safely administer medicines. The provider undertook checks on staff to ensure they were following safe procedures when administering medicines.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. They were supported in their roles by the provider and attended training that was relevant to the people they supported.

People were involved in decisions about their day to day care. When people could not make their own decisions these were made on their behalf. Decisions were made in their best interests by people who knew them to make sure their rights were protected. Staff provided care and support which was personalised and respected people’s likes and dislikes.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and had good relationships with them. Staff made sure people were involved in their own care and made sure information was given to them in a way they could understand. People’s independence was encouraged and staff respected their privacy and dignity.

People and those that mattered to them were involved in the planning of their care and support. Changes in people’s needs were identified and acted on promptly. People had access to a range of activities inside and outside of their home.

People had a choice of food to eat and were prompted to maintain a healthy balanced diet. People’s routine health needs were looked after and people had access to healthcare when they needed it.

Relatives and staff felt able to express their views and felt their opinions mattered. The provider and registered manager encouraged the involvement of families and their feedback was valued.

The provider and registered manager undertook regular quality checks. When needed improvements were made. People received care from a staff team who were well supported by the provider and the registered manager who promoted an open and transparent culture.

Although we met most people living in the home, no one was able to express their views about their experience in any detail. However, everyone we met appeared happy in the home. They all seemed comfortable with the staff and their surroundings.

We found that people were involved in the planning and delivery of their care as far as they were able. Everyone who received a service had been assessed as lacking the capacity to make important decisions for themselves. We found that care plans included details of relatives who staff could consult to help them make decisions on behalf of the people they cared for.

We found that care plans were very person centred and contained lots of information about people’s choices, preferences and their likes and dislikes. Care plans had been reproduced in an easy to read format to help people understand them.

We found that medicines were safely stored, handled and administered. Medicine records were accurate and doctors’ instructions were properly acted upon.

We were satisfied that the provider made all the appropriate checks on staff before their full employment started.

We found that the provider regularly monitored quality and performance and followed up action points from previous audits.

Staff we spoke with told us that they enjoyed their work. They told us that there was a good team spirit and that they were well supported by the manager.

We visited the home on 28 June 2012 and used a number of methods to help us to understand the experience of people who used the service, because people were not able to tell us their views.

We spoke with one visitor, three staff and the manager. We observed staff interaction with four people using an observational tool designed for the Care Quality Commission. We looked at care records for one person in detail, and a few records about other people. We looked at records about staff and the running of the home. We looked at the provider’s analysis of quality surveys, which was positive.

People we observed were treated as individuals and appeared well cared for. Staff gave people opportunity to consent to care and to undertake age-appropriate activities. Staff made necessary daily decisions for people. Best interest care and treatment decisions were agreed with professionals and people’s representatives. Restrictions in place were justified to protect people.

Staff understood people's needs and the way people communicated, and monitored people’s health and behaviour with professionals. Staff felt well supported and had professional development for their roles.

There were robust systems in place and known by staff to respond to any safeguarding concerns, incidents and complaints should they arise.