This inspection took place on 22 and 23 December 2016 and was unannounced. This meant the provider did not know we were coming.

Glebe Court is a residential home for up to 27 people. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support to 26 people. The additional room was reserved for respite care.

The service had a registered manager at the time of the 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 living in the service had their risk of experiencing avoidable harm mitigated by the provider’s risk assessments and management plans. There were enough staff available to deliver care safely. Staff had been vetted and recruited appropriately. People received their medicines in line with the prescriber’s instructions. The service had safe infection control practices and advanced emergency evacuation plans.

People were supported by trained staff who were skilled and supervised. People’s rights under mental capacity legislation were upheld. People were supported to eat well and had access to healthcare professionals as their needs required. The building was adapted to meet people’s mobility needs but people told us they would prefer to have en suite bathrooms.

People were supported by caring staff who treated them with dignity and respect. Staff promoted people’s privacy. People were treated with compassion at the end of their lives and their relatives were sensitively supported during and following end of life care.

People had care plans which detailed how their assessed needs should be met. People were supported to participate in activities of their choosing. People’s cultural and spiritual needs were identified and met. Relatives were welcomed at the service and felt informed. People and their relatives were encouraged to share their views and the service acted on complaints.

Good governance was evident at the service. People, relatives and staff felt the registered manager was experienced, approachable and open. Quality assurance checks were comprehensive and led to improvement. The service liaised with other providers and worked in partnership with health and social care professionals.

One inspector visited the service, our visit was unannounced. During our visit we gathered evidence to answer our five questions: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us about the service. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and were aware of how to report concerns about people's safety. Relatives and friends said they felt people were safe in the service, One visitor said they had no concerns about the attitude of staff to the people who live at Glebe Court. They said they were "respectful." They said they had visited the service many times and only ever heard interaction between staff and people that was patient and positive.

Is the service effective?

The service addressed people's needs effectively and involved specialists to ensure they were fully informed about how to meet people's particular needs. For example referrals were made to District Nurses, speech and language therapists and mental health specialists if people required assistance that was outside the expertise of the service.

Is the service caring?

People told us they found the staff caring. A visitor told us that they felt the staff were always "kind and attentive," and felt staff were particularly so when their relative had been unwell. They said they felt their relative's improved condition was because of the compassion they had been shown.

We observed warm interactions between staff and people who lived at the service and their visitors. One visitor told us they had been invited to share a meal with their relative and they felt this was a generous offer. When staff spoke about people who lived at the service they showed they cared for them and wanted to do their best for them.

Is the service responsive ?

Staff were responsive to people's needs and made sure that they were met promptly. We were told when a person had become seriously ill medical assistance had been requested and family members were informed without delay. People told us they did not have to wait for assistance when they requested it from staff. We observed staff being attentive to people's needs during our visit.

Is the service well-led?

The service was well led. The service had a registered manager who was knowledgeable and experienced. There were systems in place to ensure that the service provided good quality care which took into account health and safety and people's views. The provider carried out checks on the quality of the service.

We spoke with seven of the people using the service. They all expressed their satisfaction with the service being provided. One person told us "Staff are kind. They ask me about my care". We also talked with several relatives. They told us they were satisfied with the care of their relative, and staff kept them up to date and informed.

We examined four care records. Each one contained a care plan summary however we found that not all care plans had been updated to reflect changes in an individual's needs. We also found that some people using the service had not been weighed regularly, and nutritional assessments had not been carried out.

We talked to staff about safeguarding and they were able to show they understood the reporting procedure. We asked people using the service if they felt safe and they told us they did.

Staff were able to undergo regular training. Their individual supervision was not up to date, due, the manager said, to the recent relocation of the service. However a plan to rectify this had been put into place.

We saw that there were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service being provided.