The Glow Rest Home is a residential care home for six older people. There were five people living in the home at the time of our visit, some people were living with dementia and had limited ability to communicate verbally.

When we last visited the home on 7 April 2015 the service was meeting the regulations we looked at and was rated Good overall and in all five key questions.

At this inspection we found the service continued to be Good.

People were safe at the home. Staff could explain to us how to keep people safe from abuse and neglect. People had suitable risk assessments in place. The provider managed risks associated with the premises and equipment well.

There were enough staff at the home to meet people’s needs. Recruitment practices remained safe.

Medicines continued to be administered safely. The checks we made confirmed that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed by staff qualified to administer medicines.

People were cared for by staff who received appropriate training and support. Staff had the skills, experience and a good understanding of how to meet people’s needs.

We saw that staff encouraged people to make their own decisions and gave them the encouragement, time and support to do so. Staff were providing care in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals.

The staff were caring. The atmosphere in the home was calm and friendly. Staff took their time and gave people encouragement whilst supporting them.

Throughout the inspection we saw that people had the privacy they needed and were treated with dignity and respect by staff.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home and care was planned and delivered in response to their needs.

People could choose the activities they liked to do. Staff took the time to talk to people and respond to them.

The provider had arrangements in place to respond appropriately to people’s concerns and complaints.

Relatives we spoke with described the management as very effective.

Staff said they were only a small staff team but they worked well together. We observed during our visit that management were approachable and responsive to staff needs.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. Audits of the premises helped ensure the premises and people were kept safe.

This unannounced inspection took place on 7 April 2015. The Glow Rest Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to six older people. There were six people living at the home and one person was away on the day we visited. Some people at the home had dementia. The home was based on two floors. There were bedrooms and bathrooms on each floor.

The last inspection on 16 January 2014 was part of a themed inspection programme specifically looking at the quality of care provided to support people living with dementia to maintain their physical and mental health and wellbeing. We found the service was meeting the regulations we looked at.

The home had a registered manager at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 safe at the home. The provider took appropriate steps to protect people from abuse, neglect or harm. Staff knew and explained to us what constituted abuse. They spoke about ensuring people had privacy for personal care, that a person had the right to refuse food and about not forcing them to eat.

Care plans showed that staff assessed the risks to people's health, safety and welfare. This helped staff to fully understand the impact risks have on a person’s care and well-being.

Regular checks of maintenance and service records were conducted. A recent food standards agency inspection gave the kitchen a rating of four. These checks helped to ensure the home and any equipment used was safe.

We observed that there were sufficient numbers of qualified staff to care for and support people and to meet their needs. Staff were always near at hand to give assistance, chat, play a game or help people when required. People were supported by staff to take their medicines when they needed them.

We saw the home was clean and free of malodours. On the day of our visit it was very warm and windows and doors were open and people were enjoying the fresh air.

Staff had a good understanding of how to meet people’s needs. People were cared for by staff who received appropriate training and support.

The service had taken appropriate action to ensure the requirements were followed for the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These safeguards ensure that a service only deprives someone of their liberty in a safe and correct way, when it is in their best interests and there is no other way to look after them.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. There was fresh fruit, biscuits, cake and hot and cold drinks available to people throughout the day.

Detailed records of the care and support people received were kept. Staff took appropriate action to ensure people received the care and support they needed from other healthcare professionals.

People were supported by caring staff. We saw that staff were able to speak a variety of languages and could communicate with people in their first language if the person wanted to. We observed the atmosphere in the home was very relaxed and friendly and people treated the home as their own. Care plans and daily notes were kept securely and people’s right to privacy and independence was encouraged and supported by staff.

People’s needs had been assessed and information from these assessments had been used to plan the care and support they received. Care plans were comprehensive and had considered who the person was. This information was used to build a care plan that was tailored to a person’s individual needs.

The provider had arrangements in place to respond appropriately to people’s concerns and complaints.

On the day of our visit the manager was cooking lunch in the open plan kitchen/dining room, one person was helped with the preparation of the lunch and the washing up. This meant that people and staff were not separated and could chat easily to one another.

Previous fire safety inspections had noted areas for improvement, these had been actioned by the provider and the most recent inspection reported that all areas of the home were meeting with London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority regulations.

The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. Informal surveys were conducted with people on almost a daily basis. Relatives and friends were able to speak to staff or management whenever they visited the home and could give their suggestions for changes and these would be actioned. Although there were no formal systems to monitor the quality of the service people and relatives we spoke with were happy with this system.

People were involved in choosing the type of care and support they needed and when they needed it. Someone told us "I'm very comfortable here".

They said the quality of care they received was very good and they felt safe receiving the service.

Relatives told us "We moved our mother to this care home as we did not feel her needs were being met in the previous one. We are delighted with mum's care, she is kept clean, warm and stimulated. The staff are kind, compassionate, experienced and knowledgeable of dementia patients. I do not believe we could improve our mother's care on what she is already receiving. She is safe and treated with dignity".

People told us their opinions were sought and acted upon regarding the care and support they received and activities they wished to pursue.

The service provided was of good quality with people's needs being met.

The records and care practices we saw showed us that peoples' preferences, choices and wishes were recorded and where possible met.

The home endeavoured to work with other providers to deliver a cohesive and joined up service, by providing relevant information in a timely way.

We spoke with four people who use the service, one member of staff and the manager during our unannounced inspection at The Glow Rest Home.

People who use the service said that they and or their relatives and representatives had visited before they had decided to move in. People were satisfied with their rooms and the care and support that they received. Comments about the service included "we can have family and friends visit anytime", "staff listen to me and give me the help I need", "they let me do what I can for myself"and "I can read, spend time in my room, watch the television or go out during the day". We received mixed comments from people about the food with one person saying it was "excellent" and "couldn't ask for better". Another person said "lunch wasn't up to the usual standard".

Lunch time was seen to be a pleasant and unhurried social occasion with staff available to give people the encouragement and help that they needed with eating. After lunch people spent time in their bedrooms, listened to music, watched television and talked with staff. Staff had enough time to sit with individuals talking and reminiscing and demonstrated good knowledge of people, their history, current needs and preferences.

Staff said it was like being in a family home, saying that there were enough staff and that they had opportunities for training and support.