Glengarry Road provides care and accommodation to six adults with mental health problems. At the time of our inspection there were six people using the service.

This unannounced inspection was carried out on 29 March 2017. The last inspection of the service took place on 30 March 2015 and they were rated Good. At this inspection the rating remained Good.

There was a registered manager who had worked at the service for several years. 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 told us that they felt safe living at the home. Staff had all been trained in safeguarding people from abuse and they demonstrated they understood how to protect people they supported. They knew the signs of abuse and how to report it appropriately.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available on duty to meet people’s needs. Risks to people were assessed and action plan put in place to ensure people’s health and well-being were promoted. Staff followed agreed plans. People received their medicines safely. All aspects of medicine management were carried out in line with good practice and relevant policy.

Staff received regular training, support and supervisions to carry out their jobs effectively. The service worked well with other health and social care professionals including the community mental health team (CMHT). Staff knew what to do if people became unwell. People were supported to go for their medical appointments to ensure any changes in health care were managed. People had access to food and drink throughout the day and staff supported them to prepare food to meet their requirements.

People consented to their care and support before it was delivered. Staff respected people’s choices and decisions about their day-to-day care and support. People went out and returned as they wished. The service understood their responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People continued to be treated and respected by staff. People told us staff were kind and polite towards them. People’s individual needs had been assessed, planned and delivered in accordance to their wishes. Staff understood people’s needs and preferences and they complied with these. People’s needs were reviewed regularly with them and their care coordinator to ensure it reflected their present situation.

People were supported to engage in meaningful activities of their choice. People attended day centres where they learnt new skills and followed their interests. People enjoyed a range of activities within and outside the home.

The service held regular meetings with people and staff to listen to their views about the service and to consult with them about various matters such as menu and activities. People knew how to complain if they were unhappy with the service. There were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service provided. Follow up actions were completed as required to improve the service.

Glengarry Road provides accommodation, care and support to six people with mental ill-health. At the time of our inspection six people were using Glengarry Road, some of whom had been using the service for over 15 years.

We undertook this inspection on 28 January 2015. At our previous inspection on 13 February 2014 the service was meeting the regulations inspected at that time.

The service had a registered manager in post as required by their registration with the Care Quality Commission. 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 said they liked using the service and were happy to speak with staff if they had any concerns or worries. Staff supported people in line with their preferences and wishes. They were knowledgeable about people’s hobbies, interests and preferred daily routine. Staff spoke to people politely and respected their right to privacy.

People had individual support recovery plans which identified what care and support they required from staff and how they wanted it to be delivered. Staff met with people regularly to discuss their support plan and identify any changes in people’s needs.

Staff supported people to remain safe at the service and in the community. People received their medicines as prescribed and staff supported them to keep their money safe.

Meetings were held with people to get their feedback about the service. People were aware of the complaints procedure. The people we spoke with had not needed to use it.

Staff attended regular training courses, and had the knowledge and skills to support people. Staff were supported by their manager and had regular supervision sessions to reflect on their performance. Staff felt comfortable speaking with their manager and felt able to suggest ways for improving service delivery.

The registered manager regularly reviewed procedures at the service and the support provided to people. Where required, action was taken to ensure improvements were made.

We spoke with three people using the service. They told us that they were satisfied with the care being provided. One person told us, "I like it here. I get on well with the staff." Another person said, "Everything is good." Before people received care they were asked for their consent and staff acted in accordance with their wishes. People chose what care to receive and worked with staff to develop their support plans. One person commented that they could go anywhere and were "as free as a bird."

We found that people were being supported to take their medicines at the appropriate times. They were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had good arrangements to manage medicines.

People’s welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others. For example, annual multi-disciplinary meetings were held to review each person's support plan. Relevant health and care professionals, such as GPs or community psychiatric nurses attended these meetings together with people using the service, their representatives and other members of the support staff.

The provider had an effective system to monitor the quality of service. Regular house and staff meetings were held to discuss issues with the service. We saw that changes were implemented when any issues were identified. The manager also carried out audits to monitor the quality of the service.

At our inspection on 21 September 2012 we found that the provider did not protect people adequately against the risks of infection or unsafe or unsuitable premises. We judged that this had a moderate impact on people using the service and action was needed to meet essential standards of quality and safety.

At our visit on 6 March 2013 we did not speak to people who use the service as the focus of our inspection was on the standards of cleanliness and the safety and suitability of the premises. We found that the provider had made the improvements set out in the action plan submitted in response to the previous inspection. People were now cared for in a clean and hygienic environment and were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

People told us that they liked the staff at the home and they looked after them well. They liked their rooms and the food and enjoyed going on trips out arranged by the home. One person said that they liked going to the day centre each day. Another said that they had been to Portsmouth earlier in the year. People told us about the regular meetings they had with their allocated key worker where they were able to contribute to the planning of their own care and support. Staff told us that the training they received equipped them to understand and meet the needs of the people they were supporting.

These positive comments were supported by many of our findings. However, our report identifies some concerns with the standard of cleanliness and the maintenance of the home which may put people at risk.