Glanmor

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People had an assessment of their needs before they moved to the service, this information was then shared with staff. Staff told us they had the opportunity to discuss people’s needs before they moved in and how these needs would fit in with people who already lived in the house. Comments included “We sit down and discuss people’s needs” and “Managers ask us because they know we are the staff who know people best”. People received regular reviews of their care and support needs. People we spoke to shared they were involved in these reviews. Staff told us people’s needs could fluctuate dependant on their health, so assessments had to be fluid dependent on a person’s needs on a day-to-day basis.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People told us staff were excellent at ensuring they supported people in a way that enhanced their choices whilst offering extra support if needed. For example, 1 person was able to self- administer medication but told us they preferred when staff supported them with this. They told us “I can’t really be bothered to take it, but I know I should, staff know this and help me by reminding me to come home”. People felt they were supported by staff who ensured they delivered appropriate support whilst working in partnership with them.

Staff told us they ensured they kept good records to demonstrate support given to people. Records we reviewed confirmed records were comprehensive and detailed.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People told us staff supported them to make and attend appointments as needed. Staff told us people had support from professionals who had been engaged with them for a long period of time and that there was positive communication between them and other professionals when and as required. For example, social workers were welcomed and people knew who they could speak to if they required further or additional support. Professionals told us the service and staff worked well with them. For example when 1 person was struggling with community access the staff and other professionals developed a support plan to ensure they were safe when they went to their local town.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives where possible, to reduce their future needs for care and support.

People told us they were supported to access medical appointments such as GP and dentist and other professionals. One person told us they were trying to eat a heathier diet and that staff were good at supporting them without putting undue pressure on them. This had led to a significant weight loss which had improved their health and wellbeing. This meant the person experienced positive health outcomes and felt supported to make sustainable lifestyle changes in a way that respected their choices.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff kept detailed records for people to ensure they had oversight of peoples’ outcomes. Leaders discussed the need to be aware of peoples’ fluctuating capacity. At the time of inspection everyone in the service was assessed as having capacity to make choices in all aspects of their lives. However, there were processes for staff to follow should anyone’s mental health change.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

During the first day of inspection, we identified that the kitchen was kept locked. When asked why this was leaders told us this was something that always happened for hygiene reasons.

There was a kitchenette for people to use to prepare drinks and snacks. Leaders did not have any records of discussions about the locked kitchen or agreement from people about it.

Further there was CCTV in 3 areas of the house. This had been installed on the advice of the police, but leaders could not demonstrate they had discussed this or gained consent from people.

We addressed both these concerns with leaders who immediately took actions to address them. On the second day of inspection we saw the kitchen was kept unlocked during the day. It was locked at night for safety reasons. Leaders could demonstrate they had consulted people about this and also about the CCTV. People confirmed they had been invited to sign consent agreements relating to both of these restrictive practices.