The Glen Nursing 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans provided details about how people wanted their care provided. Whilst care plans contained some person-centred information, the registered manager assured us further improvements were being made. People’s bedrooms were personalised, and they were able to have their own belongings around them.

Personal information was in place to ensure staff understood people and had an insight into people’s life history. Information on people's past lives was recorded to assist staff to better understand them. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of person-led care. Comments included, “It is trying to find a connection for each individual to find out what they like to do.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s needs and continuity of care. Staff worked well with other agencies, including community groups. People had access to local services.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s care plans included details of their communication needs and preferences. Information was available in a range of formats. For example, there were large electronic noticeboards which were updated throughout the day to show meal choices. Activity options were displayed. The provider had plans in place to further improve the accessibility of the activity timetable. People had pictorial signage on their bedroom doors to support them to orientate. Good information was shared with relatives including up to date information about the home and make-up of the staff team. The home shared relevant information about the home when people started using the service, to support people and relatives with the transition. They provided a frequently asked questions fact sheet which acknowledged moving into a care home for relatives and their loved ones could feel overwhelming.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider welcomed feedback from staff, relatives and people. There was a strong open culture where people’s views mattered. During the assessment, staff demonstrated a commitment to truly listening to people and involving them meaningfully in all aspects of their care and support. There were also regular meetings with relatives and people, and action was taken as a result of people’s feedback. The service carried out a detailed annual survey and collated and shared the results. This was also accessibly displayed in the foyer of the home. The results of the annual survey had been collated in April 2026 and indicated a high level of satisfaction with the quality and safety of the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider had considered accessibility and inclusion when planning care delivery and the layout of the home. The service was accessible, with adaptations in place, such as handrails, specialised equipment such as hoists and accessible bathrooms. Areas around the home provided strategic comfortable areas where people could rest whilst navigating the home.

Admissions were considered in line with people’s dementia diagnoses, with the intention of enabling people to move freely around the home and access outdoor areas. This helped make the service more appealing and accessible to people with different needs. People were able to access all areas of the home including the gardens, cinema room and varied communal spaces. People’s practical, emotional and sensory needs had been fully considered in the design of the home, including smaller comfortable seating areas. Where people were unable to access community-based services safely, the provider took steps to ensure their needs were still met. For example, there were regular visits from the local optician.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Processes were in place to ensure people had equity in outcomes. Care plans highlighted people’s diverse needs, including their religions, culture and sexuality. Staff received equality diversity and inclusion training to give them an understanding of the context in which they worked. We observed staff treating people equally and with respect, including recognising and responding appropriately to people’s protected characteristics. Where people preferred to spend more time in their own rooms, efforts were made to include them in activities. For example, we saw the service had organised for a small pony to visit. We saw people enjoyed this experience and were engaged and smiling whilst petting it. People in their own rooms were also given the opportunity to be involved, and the pony was taken to them. Some people welcomed this and enjoyed the experience.

People were given exceptional support to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff received training to support them in caring for people who were reaching the end of their lives. The provider used a nationally recognised tool to assess if people were coming towards the end of their lives which detailed what action needed to be taken to ensure their needs were met. Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms were in place which summarised personalised recommendations for people’s clinical care in a future emergency. The provider had organised innovative dedicated meetings with people and relatives and liaised closely with the GP to ensure plans were detailed and focused on people’s wishes. This meant people and relatives were fully engaged and plans were meaningful and considered a range of clinical options fully, including when a hospital admission may be appropriate. The provider told us there were plans to further enhance end of life care plans for people who wished to participate in this. The provider confirmed they had started this process to ensure people’s personal preferences were sensitively discussed and included in care plans. The provider also recognised the care and support relatives needed at this time.

Feedback from professionals was very complimentary about how the service supported people who were reaching the end of their lives. Comments included, “They always welcome new ideas and practice that will improve the service.”

We saw a range of feedback from relatives about the support their loved ones had received when they were at the end of their lives. Comments included, “I am so grateful that [name of relative] was able to spend their last few months at the home. The dedication to [name of person’s] care from all the management and staff was without doubt everything that I could have hoped for.”