What life is like for people using this service:

People received safe care and support as the staff team had been trained to recognise signs of abuse or risk and understood what to do to safely support people. People received safe support with their medicines by competent staff members. The provider had systems in place to respond to any medicine errors. Staff members followed effective infection prevention and control procedures. When risks to people’s health and welfare were identified the provider acted to minimise the likelihood of occurrence.

People’s individual human rights were protected by those supporting them. The environment where people lived suited their individual needs and preferences. The provider supported staff in providing effective care for people through person-centred care planning, training and supervision. People were promptly referred to additional healthcare services when required. People were supported to maintain a healthy diet.

People received help and support from a kind and compassionate staff team with whom they had positive relationships with. People were supported by staff members who were aware of their individual protected characteristics like religion and gender. People were supported to develop their independence and to set achievable goals in life.

People were provided with information in a way that they could understand. Policies and guidelines important to people were provided in a way they could understanding. People were supported by staff members who knew their individual communication styles. The provider had systems in place to encourage and respond to any complaints or compliments from people or visitors.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service they provided and to drive improvements where needed. The provider and management team had good links with the local community which people benefited from.

More information in Detailed Findings below.

Rating at last inspection: Good (date last report published 23 August 2016)

About the service:

Glasshouse Hill is Glasshouse Hill provides accommodation and personal care for up to 11 people with an acquired brain injury and associated conditions, including physical disability and epilepsy. At this inspection 11 people were living there.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection, ‘Good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained good in all key questions with an overall rating of ‘Good.’

This unannounced inspection took place on 14 June 2016. The service was last inspected on 24 January 2014, when no concerns were identified and it was found that all standards assessed were being met.

Glasshouse Hill provides accommodation and personal care for up to 11 people with an acquired brain injury and associated conditions, including physical disability and epilepsy.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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’s needs were assessed and their care plans provided staff with clear guidance about how they wanted their individual needs met. Care plans were person centred and contained appropriate risk assessments. They were regularly reviewed and amended as necessary to ensure they reflected people’s changing support needs.

People were happy, comfortable and relaxed with staff. They received care and support from staff who were appropriately trained and confident to meet their individual needs and they were able to access health, social and medical care, as required. There were opportunities for additional staff training specific to the needs of the service. Staff received one-to-one supervision meetings with their manager. Formal personal development plans, such as annual appraisals, were in place.

There were policies and procedures in place to keep people safe and there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they had completed training in safe working practices. We saw people were supported with patience, consideration and kindness and their privacy and dignity was respected.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed and appropriate pre-employment checks had been made including evidence of identity and satisfactory written references. Appropriate checks were also undertaken to ensure new staff were safe to work within the care sector, providing support for vulnerable people.

Medicines were managed safely in accordance with current regulations and guidance by staff who had received appropriate training to help ensure safe practice. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored, administered, audited and reviewed appropriately.

People were supported to make decisions in their best interests. The registered manager and staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and records were accurately maintained to ensure people were protected from risks associated with eating and drinking. Where risks to people had been identified, these had been appropriately monitored and referrals made to relevant professionals, where necessary.

There was a complaints process in place. People were encouraged and supported to express their views about their care and staff were responsive to their comments.

The quality of the service was assessed and monitored through regular audits. Satisfaction questionnaires were used to obtain the views of people who lived in the home, their relatives and other stakeholders. Staff were encouraged to question practice and changes had taken place as a result.

During our inspection we met and spoke with nine people who used the service, five care staff and the registered manager.

All the people we spoke with told us that they were happy living at Glasshouse Hill. One person told us, "This is a happy home". A visitor told us, “ I cannot fault the home".

Staff were aware of their responsibility to protect people from the risk of harm.

Arrangements in place ensured that people were protected from the risks associated with the unsafe management of medicines.

Satisfactory recruitment procedures ensured that people were protected from the risks of unsuitable staff being employed.

There were systems in place to assess,monitor and improve the service so that people lived in a well managed home.

People we spoke with had visited the home before moving in and told us they had chosen their room. The exception where this did not happen was where people had been admitted as an emergency.

People told us they were given the opportunity to go out regularly if they wished to. Where people went was individual and different for each person according to their needs. One person told us about the aims and milestones they working towards that would enable them to go out independently.

Most people told us they liked living at the home.

None of the four people we spoke with raised any concerns with us when we spoke with them. People we spoke with knew the name of the manager and said they would feel able to speak with them if they had worries.

Two people told us that the staff were “very nice”. All the people we spoke could identify their key worker and said they met regularly with them.