Glennfield Care Centre provides accommodation, support and care, including nursing care, for up to 88 older people, some of whom have mental health needs. 87 people were living at the service on the day of our inspection.

This inspection was undertaken by one inspector and an expert by experience of people living with dementia. At the last inspection on 30 October 2014 the service was rated as ‘good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘good’.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. 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 were at the heart of the service. Staff understood what was important to each person and worked closely with each other and other professionals to promote people’s well-being and happiness.

People had health, care, and support plans in place which took account of their needs. These recorded people’s individual choices, their likes and dislikes and any assistance they required. Risks to people who lived at the service were identified, and plans were put into place by staff to minimise these risks and enable people to live as independent and safe life as possible.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People and relatives said staff were always very kind and caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect at all times.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and were supported by the registered manager to maintain and develop their skills and knowledge by way of supervision, observations, and appraisals. Staff were trained to provide safe and effective care which met people’s individual needs and knew people’s care requirements well. Staff had the necessary training and used recognised distraction techniques to lessen people’s anxiety.

People and their visitors were able to raise any suggestions or concerns they might have with the registered manager and team of staff. They said that they felt listened to as communication with the registered manager and staff team was good.

Arrangements were in place to ensure the quality of the service provided for people was regularly monitored. We found that people who lived at the service and their relatives were encouraged to share their views and feedback about the quality of the care and support provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection was carried out on 30 October 2014. It was an unannounced inspection and was undertaken by two inspectors.

Glennfield Care Centre provides accommodation, support and care, including nursing care, for up to 88 adults and older people, some of whom have mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were 84 people living in the home.

At our previous inspection on 07 July 2013 we found the provider to be meeting all the regulations that we looked at.

At the time of our inspection the home 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.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation on Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. We found that people’s rights were being protected and DOLs applications were in progress. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant that they were working within the law when they cared for people who lacked the capacity to make their own decisions. We saw that there were policies and procedures in relation to the MCA and DoLS to ensure that people, who could not make decisions for themselves were protected.

There was process in place to ensure that people’s health care needs were assessed, so that care was planned and delivered in a consistent way. Staff were seen to support each person according to their individual needs. This included people at risk of malnutrition or dehydration who were being supported to have sufficient quantities to eat and drink.

We saw that staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. They knocked on people’s bedroom doors and waited for a response before entering. On entering they asked people if everything was alright and if they needed anything.

People confirmed they were able to participate in a variety of chosen hobbies and interests and were able to change their minds if they did not wish to take part in these.

There was a complaints process in place which was available in the entrance hall to people, relatives and others who used and visited the service. Regular meetings were held for people and their relatives to provide them with an opportunity to provide their view about the home and to receive information about what was happening in the future.

The provider had clear recruitment process in place that were being followed. Records we looked at and staff we spoke with confirmed that staff were only employed within the home after all essential safety checks had been satisfactorily completed. This meant that only people suitable for the role were employed.

The provider had an effective quality assurance system in place to monitor and improve the quality of care that was provided. There was a programme of audits that involved people who used the service, families, health care professionals and others on a regular basis.

People’s rights to give consent to their support and care were respected. Where a person was not able to give this consent, there were legal systems in place to ensure that the person received the support, care and medical treatment that they needed.

People who we spoke with had positive comments, including using the word, “Excellent”, about the standard and quality of support, care and treatment provided.

We saw that staff were caring and appropriately responded to people’s support and care requirements when needed.

The premises were safe and accessible for people, visitors and staff. People told us that they liked living at the home. They also had access to a range of communal and private areas.

There was enough suitable equipment available to meet people’s support, care and treatment needs. The equipment was maintained to ensure that it was safe to be used.

There were recruitment and training systems in place to ensure that members of staff were suitable and had the knowledge to enable them to provide people with safe and quality care.

Quality assurance systems were in place that ensured that people’s views and suggestions were listened and responded to when they were made. Records were up-to-date and protected people from substandard support, care and treatment.

People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes were treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs were met.

The inspection team was led by a Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspector joined by an Expert by Experience who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service, and a practising professional.

During our inspection of Glennfield Care Centre on 31 July 2012 we used a number of different methods to help us understand the experience of people living in the home. This was because some people living there were living with dementia, which meant that they were not able to tell us their experiences. For part of the inspection we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Glennfield Care centre was divided into five units, each of which had a number of single bedrooms as well as lounge and dining areas shared by the people living in the unit. The three members of the inspection team spent time in three of the units, where older people and older people living with dementia were accommodated.

People we spoke with were very positive about the care they received and the way they were treated by the staff. One person told us, “Staff are very discreet and pleasant and they always speak to me with respect.” Another said, “Staff always have time for me, they are all so kind here.” A visitor told us, “Staff are absolutely brilliant. They always make me feel welcome and they are very attentive to my friend”.

People were complimentary about the food and told us they were able to choose what they wanted to eat. One person told us, “Mealtimes are enjoyable”. Glennfield Care Centre had a ‘protected mealtime’ policy. This meant that events, for example, doctors’ visits and medicine administration did not happen at mealtimes. On the day we inspected the home we noted that this was adhered to by staff, other than on one unit when medicines were given during the meal. People told us it was unusual to have medicines at mealtimes. People confirmed that family members were only able to be around at mealtimes if they were assisting their relative.

People felt safe in the home and knew how to raise any issues of concern. One person said, "I have no concerns, but if I had, I would speak to the team leader and I am confident of a swift resolution”.