The Glen Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Staff were responsive to people’s needs and provided person-centred care as they knew people well and their backgrounds. People were supported to enjoy a variety of activities at the home. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care, so their care plans showed what was important to them. People were supported as individuals, ensuring their equality and human rights were protected and in line with their needs and preferences. Staff worked well with other agencies and supported people to make choices about their end-of-life care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People received care and treatment which was person-centred. Care plans were on the providers new electronic system and were detailed and up to date reflecting individual’s needs. People felt they were well cared for and that staff knew them well.

Staff knew about peoples’ needs and backgrounds. The activity staff found out about peoples’ likes and dislikes and used the information to organise person centred activities. This was recognised by a relative who told us, “There’s activities every afternoon during the week, regular activities like quizzes and bingo but also flower arranging and biscuit making which mum loves as she used to be a cook. They have trips in the summer and a fete.”

People’s care was delivered in line with their care plans and their preferences. We observed care was centred around people’s needs, preferences and wishes. There was a weekly program of activities people could take part in and regular 1 to 1 visits to people in their rooms who chose not you join the arranged activities. Most people’s rooms were personalised with their own furniture and belongings.

People told us that should they need support from health professionals this was available. One person told us “The doctor came yesterday and changed my medication.”

Staff told us they worked well with health care professionals to ensure people received joined-up care. One staff member commented, “The district nurses do the dressings for people, but we monitor people and would let the GP know if we are concerned.”

Health and social care professionals felt care and treatment was delivered in a way that met peoples’ assessed needs.

People’s care records showed continuity of care, and that staff were following advice from external health and social care professionals involved in peoples’ care.

We observed staff communicating and interacting with people in a way that they understood. This included speaking to them clearly, at their eye level and allowing them time to take in the information and respond at their own speed.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s communication needs, ensuring they had their glasses and hearing aids for example and understanding their mental capacity.

People were asked for their views and there were regular residents’ meetings and opportunities for people and families to speak to management and staff. The activity team produced a monthly newsletter keeping people informed about things happening at the home. People's communication needs and preferred method of communication was recorded in their care plan.

We saw staff during our visit listening to people and respecting their choices about their day-to-day support. People knew how to provide feedback about the home. The registered manager had received numerous compliments about the standards of care and kindness of staff. Examples include, ‘Your staff are a credit to you. You have caring staff who do their very best to care for my dad and many other residents’, ‘We have visited many, many times unannounced. Care goes over and beyond and exceeded our expectations, every time. Staff are so genuinely kind and respectful’ and ‘I feel The Glen is a true family home for residents and staff. I would certainly recommend The Glen to all my family and friends.’ No complaints had been received, just a few grumbles which the registered manager had been very proactive to resolve. One person told us, “My son raised an issue with the manager, and it was sorted quickly.” People were very positive about the registered manager, comments, included, “I can easily talk to (registered manager) if I’m worried, she’s very friendly, always nice” and “(Registered manager) and all her team are very approachable.”

Staff knew peoples’ needs well and ensured any concerns were dealt with promptly. It was evident speaking with staff they had built positive relationships with people and wanted the best for them.

The home held regular meetings with relatives and people who lived at the service, as well as conducting feedback surveys.

People had access to support and treatment when they needed it. People were supported by external professionals including from the local GP practice. We saw staff providing support to people throughout the day and ensuring they had their needs met.

All staff we spoke with were respectful of people’s rights and promoting care and treatment which followed best practice.

Healthcare professionals told us staff promptly contacted them if there were concerns about changes to people’s health or condition.

Equality and diversity were promoted at the home. For example, staff in all roles were able to access a range of professional qualifications, if they wished to do so. There were staff from a range of cultural backgrounds and the home involved people who lived at the service in celebrating different cultures. Records showed people had received appropriate care including external specialist care and advice.

Care was personalised and in line with people’s preferences. People spoke positively about the care staff that supported them and felt as much involved as they wanted to be in planning their care and support. People did not experience discrimination or inequality in how their care was delivered and the support they received.

All staff we spoke with were respectful of people’s differences and treated people equally. Staff advocated for people when necessary to ensure people had the right treatment at the right time.

There were policies to promote people’s equality and diversity needs. Staff received training on equality, diversity and inclusion. Assessment and care planning processes took into account a wide range of needs, including those related to disability, age, gender, religion and other protected characteristics. Training records confirmed staff received equality and diversity training as part of their role.

People, and their relatives where appropriate, were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care.

Staff said they spoke to people about their needs and recorded their preferences as appropriate.

Care records showed end of life care was discussed. However, it was not clear in 1 person’s care plan that they had been involved in these discussions. The registered manager assured us they were and would review all care plans to ensure people’s views were recorded. Where people were nearing the end of their lives, staff had worked with their GP to ensure there were appropriate medicines prescribed and available to manage any pain they might have.