The inspection of Glebe Cottage took place on 27 February 2017 and was unannounced.

Glebe Cottage is a care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people, who have different forms of learning disabilities such as Pica syndrome (an eating disorder), and Autism whilst living with other complex needs such as: epilepsy and mental health issues. These conditions made daily tasks an increased challenge. At the time of our inspection there were six people living there.

Most of the people living at the home were unable to engage in a full discussion; we were able to briefly speak with them at the home and observe how they interacted with staff. The premises consisted of a detached house with communal lounge, dining room, kitchen and bathroom facilities. There was also a spacious and secure garden for people to use.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

Relatives told us their family members were safe at the home and with the staff who provided care. Staff had a clear understanding about the signs of abuse and were aware of what to do if they suspected abuse was taking place. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm.

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs safely. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff started work. The provider ensured staff had the skills and experience which were necessary to carry out their role. Staff had received appropriate support that promoted their development. The staff team had an in depth knowledge about people’s care needs. People told us they felt supported by staff.

Medicines were managed, stored and disposed of safely. Any changes to people’s medicines were prescribed by the person’s GP or psychiatrist and administered appropriately.

Fire safety arrangements and risk assessments for the environment were in place to help keep people safe. The service had a contingency plan that identified how the home would function in the event of an unforeseeable emergency such as fire, adverse weather conditions, flooding or power cuts.

Staff were up to date with current guidance to support people to make decisions. Staff had a clear understanding of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) as well as their responsibilities in respect of this. Where people had restrictions placed on them these were done in their best interests using appropriate safeguards.

People had enough to eat and drink and there were arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk. People were supported to have access to healthcare services and healthcare professionals were involved in the regular monitoring of their well-being. The provider worked effectively with healthcare professionals and was pro-active in referring people for assessment or treatment.

Staff treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes had been taken into consideration and support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted when personal care was undertaken.

People’s care and support were planned proactively in partnership with them. People’s needs were assessed when they entered the home and on a continuous basis to reflect changes in their needs. Staff understood the importance of promoting independence and choice. People were happy and their confidence and ability to be as independent as possible had grown since being at Glebe Cottage. The way staff have developed a good understanding of each person and then

The inspection of Glebe Cottage took place on 8 April 2015 and was unannounced. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to look at the overall quality of the service. The previous inspection was carried out on 23 September 2013 and found that the provider had met the standards required.

Glebe Cottage is a residential home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people, who are living with a learning disability and have complex needs. At the time of our inspection there were five people who lived there. Whilst people were unable to take part in full discussions, we were able to speak with and observe how they interacted with staff. The premises consisted of a detached house with accommodation arranged over two floors with a spacious and secure garden for people to use.

At the time of our visit, Glebe Cottage had a registered manager in post. 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 safe at Glebe Cottage, a relative told us, “My relative is very safe here.” Staff had a good understanding about the signs of abuse and were aware of what to do if they suspected abuse was taking place. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm.

There was sufficient amount of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. People were supported by staff that had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff started work. Staff worked within best practice guidelines to ensure people’s care, treatment and support promoted well-being and independence.

Medicines were managed safely. Any changes to people’s medicines were prescribed by the person’s GP.

Staff were up to date with current guidance to support people to make decisions. Information about the home was given to people and consent was obtained prior to any care given. Where people had restrictions placed on them these were done in their best interest using appropriate safeguards.

People had enough to eat and drink throughout the day and night and there were arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk. People were supported to have access to healthcare services and were involved in the regular monitoring of their health. The home worked effectively with healthcare professionals and was pro-active in referring people for treatment.

Staff involved and treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes had been taken into consideration and support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes. Relatives and friends were able to visit. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted for example when personal care tasks were performed.

The home was organised to meet people’s changing needs. People’s needs were assessed when they entered the home and on a continuous basis to reflect changings in their needs. People who wanted to move into the home would come on a trial period, so they could ascertain whether the home meet their needs.

People were encouraged to voice their concerns or complaints about the home and there were different ways for their voice to be heard. Suggestions, concerns and complaints were used as an opportunity to learn and improve the home.

People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them. People were protected from social isolation through systems the home had in place. We found there were a range of activities available within the home and community.

The provider actively sought, encouraged and supported people’s involvement in the improvement of the home.

People’s care and welfare was monitored regularly to ensure their needs were met within a safe environment. The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. Management liaised with, obtained guidance and best practice techniques from external agencies and professional bodies.

People told us the staff were friendly and management were always approachable. Staff were encouraged to contribute to the improvement of the home. Staff told us they would report any concerns to their manager. Staff felt that management were very supportive.

During our visit we met and spoke with three of the current five residents who live at Glebe Cottage. The remaining two residents had gone out for the day. Whilst residents were not able to take part in structured interviews, we were able to spend time speaking with and observing how they interacted with staff. From the observations we made, indications were that residents were comfortable and happy in their home. We also carried out a telephone interview with the family of one resident following this inspection.

We noted people who lived at this service were included in decisions about their day to day activities as much as possible. Staff sought consent from people, either verbally or by observing people's body language. We noted residents approached staff when they needed assistance with their care and welfare. We saw that staff understood the needs of residents and communicated well with them, and there was a homely atmosphere within the home.

Arrangements for managing mealtimes worked well and the special dietary needs of residents were catered for. The home was kept clean and fresh throughout and they had received no complaints since the last inspection. Staff recruitment records, in the main, were well kept.

We met four of the six residents who lived at Glebe Cottage but were unable to carry out detailed interviews with them due to their special communication needs. We made observations during our visit which showed that staff were knowledgeable about people’s care needs and understood how to communicate with them. People who lived at the home were treated respectfully by staff, and were well cared for. They were supported to make choices where possible, and had their preferences taken into account.