The Glen Nursing 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (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’s needs were assessed before they started using the service, and the information was used to inform care plans. There was clear evidence people’s wishes and preferences were consistently documented within their care plans. This comprehensive approach ensured staff could provide support tailored to each person, making their care experience more meaningful and person-centred. The provider maintained a strong emphasis on ensuring people who moved into the home were compatible and their transition was smooth. Feedback from relatives about their loved one’s experience moving into the service was good. Comments included, “On the day we moved [name of person] everyone knew their name including the chef who made their favourite lunch. Communication between staff, management and relatives is brilliant.”

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.

The service supported people in line with legislation and used current evidence based good practice effectively. This included detailed assessments. Care records provided evidence to show good practice guidance was followed in areas such as nutrition, hydration and skin integrity.

The provider always worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once.

There was evidence of excellent team working within the service and with external partners. There were effective links with families and other health and social care professionals. Staff felt supported, valued and included in the day to day running of the home. Throughout our visits we observed staff liaising professionally and offering support and guidance to each other. Staff expressed pride in how the team worked together. Comments included, “We are all so hard working and caring as a team and it shows. I am proud to work here.”

Systems were in place to support staff to share and pass on information about people’s care to enable them to offer consistent care. The management team and staff completed daily meetings and handover records and worked well as a team. The management team were very visible and actively embraced open communication. They demonstrated their commitment and responsiveness to feedback, which led to outstanding teamwork and positive outcomes for people.

Staff worked collaboratively, sharing information to support the implementation of changes, which was reflected in the quality of care and people’s experiences. We received extremely positive feedback from professionals who worked regularly with the service. Comments included, “We have worked together collaboratively.”

There was a warm and inclusive atmosphere in the home, and this was reflected in feedback from relatives. Comments included, “Communication between staff, management and relatives is brilliant. I am kept regularly updated and any concerns I have are dealt with efficiently, professionally and with great empathy.”

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

Systems were in place to ensure people had access to specialist support and professional advice was used to inform care plans. Records showed involvement from other professionals including speech and language therapists and mental health professionals. The provider had a good relationship with the local GP and there were weekly visits. Where people’s needs changed referrals were made promptly to other agencies.

People’s health was consistently monitored to promote their wellbeing. People were also able to freely access gentle exercise and the outdoors, promoting both physical health and mental wellbeing. The mealtime experience was relaxed and sociable and there was a good choice of nutritious meals and snacks readily available. Where people required specialist diets, information was readily available to the chef and care staff on an up-to-date electronic board.

Relatives reported they felt people were empowered to make their own choices throughout the day.

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.

Processes were in place to evidence people’s care and support was monitored. People’s outcomes were documented in care plans and showed actions taken to ensure these were met. For example, people who were prone to tissue damage, had appropriate repositioning plans in place to ensure their skin remained as healthy as possible. Where people were at risk of losing weight effective monitoring and action was in place. Where people presented with complex behaviours monitoring was in place. Some improvements were required in this area to ensure detailed records were maintained, enabling more thorough analysis, which could better inform care plans and consistency of staff’ approach. We discussed this with the provider, and they confirmed they would carry out some further training for staff in this area. Staff understood the importance of monitoring people’s care.

Relatives told us about examples where outcomes for people had improved, which enhanced their lives.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Processes were in place to assess people’s mental capacity. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and be as least restrictive as possible. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty had the appropriate legal authority and were being met.

People were offered choice and control over how they wanted to live their lives. We observed staff routinely offering choices, and respecting people’s wishes and they demonstrated a good understanding of the principles of the MCA. Comments included, “I don’t just presume they cannot answer and they cannot make a choice. They might be able to point or make a gesture.”