The Glow Rest Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the service management and leadership continue to be inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created still did not always support the delivery of high-quality care.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff were supported by the registered manager to deliver consistently safe, person-centred, and inclusive care and support to the person living in the care home in line with the provider’s vision and values for the service.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The service continued to have the same registered owner/manager in place. The registered manager and both members of her staff team all lived together in the care home. The registered manager promoted inclusivity and openness, ensuring staff felt comfortable raising concerns or seeking advice. Staff confirmed this approach, noting they were always able to speak openly with the registered manager in-person daily. A staff member said, “We have a brilliant team spirit here which is quite unique because we all live and work together. We have to get along and we do. We are like a family really.” A relative was equally complimentary about the leadership approach of the registered manager. They expressed confidence in the manager, describing consistent communication and saying that any issues were addressed quickly.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The registered manager promoted an open culture where anyone could report issues without fear and where concerns were acted on appropriately. People expressed feeling able to raise any concerns they might have and were confident their views would be taken seriously, investigated and resolved. The provider had supporting documents including, an accessible complaints and staff whistleblowing procedures, which set out clear expectations for how concerns should be reported and dealt with by the provider.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They had an inclusive and fair culture which had improved equality and equity for people who work for them.

The provider supported staff fairly and promoted an inclusive working environment. Policies reflected equality and diversity principles, and managers ensured staff needs were understood and accommodated. Staff reported feeling valued and treated fairly. Staff had their diverse cultural and religious needs respected.

The service did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

At our last inspection we found the provider did not operate any formal oversight and scrutiny systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service they provided. We required them to take appropriate action to address this problem, but at this inspection we found not enough improvements had been made despite it being discussed with the registered manager at their last inspection. This was because the registered manager had still not established any formal mechanisms to monitor the quality and safety of the service they provided. Consequently, they failed to pick up several new issues we identified at this assessment including, how they monitored their fire safety arrangements, trained and supervised staff, and maintained records they were legally obliged to keep in respect of managing a care home.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider shared information with partners they worked closely with. The registered manager and staff told us they worked in partnership with various external health and social care professionals and bodies who they regularly consulted and welcomed their views and advice.

The service did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

Systems were not in place to review performance, identify learning opportunities and adapt practice. The provider did not routinely conduct formal audits and checks to identify performance shortfalls and learn lessons.