Glencairn Residential Home

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.

Pre-admission assessments had been completed for everyone admitted to the service since we last inspected. These contained all necessary information to commence provision of care and were a starting point for in house care plans. Care plans covered all aspects of peoples care needs, well-being and had information about who they were before becoming a resident of a care setting.

There was a ‘resident of the day’ process whereby room 1, for example, the person residing in that room had all of their care records assessments and plans reviewed on the 1st day of each month. Staff would speak with the person to see if they had any suggested changes and, if relevant to relatives for their views.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff weighed people on a monthly or more regular basis and added these to their electronic care record which calculated their malnutrition screening score. The malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) is a standardised score based on people’s body mass index (BMI) and weight which indicates when unplanned weight loss or low BMI had become a problem and people were at risk of malnutrition. When we last assessed the service, weights were usually recorded in a book which had been lost so were being written on a sheet of paper which was also lost during our visit. Appropriate actions were taken when people had a MUST score including GP appointments, providing fortified drinks and meals and offering additional snacks between meals.
Other nationally recognised assessment tools were in use which could trigger referrals to GP’s, district nurses or the speech and language team

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

At our last inspection, we had just 1 month of audits to review and these were not a complete range of audits. At this inspection there were records of regular audits including care plan audits. These were in-depth and reviewed all documents in care records. Some records were updated during the audit and others, if there were actions needed, were referred to senior staff to update and once completed they were signed off by the registered manager.

The provider also audited aspects of the premises, medicines and health and safety, all of which contributed to improving the potential experiences of people at Glencairn Residential Home.

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

The provider had applied for a range of DoLS and had completed some mental capacity assessments however more consideration needed to be given to how best to record consents and completion of additional assessments. For example, a person may have a capacity assessment and a best interest decision for their overarching care plan. This covered all aspects of care they would receive from the service provider; however mental capacity assessments should be decision specific and the care plan covered too wide a range of decisions. For example, consenting to personal care, being weighed, sharing information and medicines under a single decision.
We received mixed feedback from relatives about whether they were involved in decisions about people’s care. For example, a relative who held a power of attorney said they were often consulted about decisions, and a second who did not hold a power of attorney told us they were contacted about decisions and not another relative who did have power of attorney. All agreed however, on a day-to-day basis, staff gained consent before providing support.
We signposted the provider to resources about mental capacity and since our assessment they have updated consents with people.