Archived: Glenarie House Nursing Home Limited

This unannounced inspection took place on 18 August 2015.

Glenarie House is a residential service providing care and support for people with mental health conditions. It is registered to provide nursing and personal care for a maximum of 20 adults. It is a large Victorian style house, situated in a suburb of Liverpool overlooking Newsham Park. The home is within easy reach of local shops and amenities and on a major bus route.

At the time of the inspection the location was providing services for 20 people.

A registered manager was not in post. The current acting manager is in the process of making an application to become the registered manager. 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.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet the needs of each person living at the home. There was a programme of staff training available, which included topics relevant to the needs of the people using the service. Staff were recruited subject to satisfactory references and appropriate checks being completed.

Staff were knowledgeable about the people who lived at the home. People told us that they felt safe living at the home.

The emergency call system was not readily accessible to some people living at the home. We have asked the provider to review access to the system in each room.

We looked at some aspects of fire safety in the home. People living at the home did not have personal emergency evacuation plans in place. Two fire doors in the location did not close fully. These were repaired before the end of the inspection. Staff were not required to sign to confirm that they had completed regular safety checks around the building. The provider was asked to introduce a system to ensure that checks had been completed.

Systems were in place for people living in the home, their relatives and staff to raise concerns. Evidence of appropriate and timely responses to issues raised was provided. The provider shared documents which demonstrated that they had listened to and acted on concerns and complaints.

The location had a system for the ordering, storage, administration and disposal of medication and conducted regular audits and checks. Medication was administered in accordance with this system. The location did not have detailed support plans for people who were receiving administration of PRN (as required) medication.

We were told that six people were on standard Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations. CQC was notified of one of these authorisations in the previous twelve months. The provider was advised to review the requirement to notify CQC of these authorisations as a matter of urgency.

We saw that staff sought people’s consent before providing routine support or care. People living at the home had a mental capacity assessment completed and reviewed as part of the care planning process. Assessments were in place for specific decisions.

Individual dietary requirements were met through the production of personalised menus. This was documented in care files.

People had access to a range of primary health care and specialist services, such as GPs, dentists and mental health teams.

People were supported with dignity and respect throughout the inspection. Staff spoke to them before providing care and checked that people understood what this meant. Staff demonstrated awareness of the needs of the people and interacted with them in a professional, caring and courteous manner.

Each person was supported to be as independent as possible through a process of positive risk taking. Appropriately detailed risk-assessments supported this process.

People had private space within the service and staff were respectful of this when engaging with them.

Relatives and friends were free to visit the service without any obvious restriction.

Systems were in place to encourage people to discuss any concerns with staff. Changes to care plans demonstrated that the provider had responded to people’s preferences and changing needs.

Care files were inconsistently structured and contained current and out of date information. This meant that staff may have difficulty in accessing important information and guidance efficiently.

Some areas of the accommodation had been recently decorated. There was evidence that bedrooms had been personalised.

All staff spoke positively about the influence of the management team and its leadership.

The service had systems in place to monitor and support quality assurance.