The Glen Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Accidents and incidents were reported by staff and action was taken to mitigate the risk of events happening again. There was an open culture of learning and sharing lessons when things went wrong. The registered manager undertook a detailed analysis of events in order to demonstrate and share learning. Managers communicated clearly and supportively with the staff team. There was a culture of welcoming any complaints and concerns as a way of learning and informing improvement. People had access to professionals, family and friends outside of the service who they could raise concerns about safety with.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Continuity of care was maintained by ensuring staff had access to records. The service supported the Red Bag pathway programme for people living in care homes. This is an NHS led initiative aimed to support people safely in the event they need to be admitted to hospital. Essential clinical records were available if people needed an admission, thereby supporting more effective communication and an improved quality of service. People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Processes to safeguard people were embedded and helped ensure risks were identified, acted upon and monitored effectively. The registered manager worked collaboratively with the local authority to support people safely. Staff received safeguarding training and understood how to recognise and report poor care and abuse. Where people were subject to Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS) the service had made applications to the local authority and there were clear care plans and monitoring in place. DoLS ensure if a person is restricted in a way that deprives them of their liberty in a care home, it is only done when it is in their best interests, is necessary for their safety, and all other options have been considered.We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found the service was fully compliant. People and relatives told us they felt safe. Comments included, “I have peace of mind now that [name of relative] is safe.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage most risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were assessed and regularly reviewed. Key risks such as fire, falls, skin integrity and nutrition and hydration were assessed and monitored. Risk assessments were individualised to cover other individual risks people may be exposed to.

However, we identified some contradicting information in people’s care records, relating to risk. This included information about people’s mobility and eating and drinking needs. Plans showed evidence of review, but this was not always reflected in the core of the care plan. We did not find any impact of harm and staff demonstrated they knew people’s needs well. The provider responded to feedback, and we were fully assured any inconsistencies would be addressed promptly.

Where people required support with moving and handling, there were clear risk assessmentsin place, and we observed staff following plans of care and using equipment safely.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The home was purpose built, well maintained and safe and there were systems in place to ensure the required health and safety checks were completed. There was a dedicated maintenance worker on site which meant any shortfalls could be addressed promptly.

There were a range of comfortable and attractive communal spaces, including an old-fashioned tearoom, hair dressing salon and cinema room. People were able to access safe outdoor gardens, which had been thoughtfully designed to include a fountain, raised flower beds and an outdoor aquarium. There were small seating areas along the corridors to allow people the opportunity to rest or spend time away from others. Bedrooms were personalised with items that were important to people, such as photographs and memorabilia. There was dementia friendly signage around the home to support people to orientate. There was evidence of ongoing high-quality investment into the service. Feedback from people and relatives about the environment was universally positive.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Consistently safe staffing levels were in place. The registered manager monitored people’s needs closely to ensure staffing levels were appropriate. Staff were attentive and responded to people promptly when they needed care and support. Recruitment was managed safely. Staff had good quality induction, supervision and training to carry out their role and spoke positively about the support they received from the management team. There was a rolling programme of mandatory and enhanced training. People and their relatives’ reported staff were well trained, responsive, and understood the individual needs of their loved ones.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Processes were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of infection. The service was clean and tidy throughout, and staff followed good practices to keep people safe. People and relatives complimented the consistent cleanliness of the home. The service had consistently achieved a high standard when they were audited by external health professionals.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were managed safely. The clinic rooms were clean, spacious and organised.

The service operated an electronic system and medication administration records were clear and generally well completed. The service had good links with the local GP and people’s medication was reviewed regularly. Where people were prescribed high risk medication, specific care plans were in place. The nursing team demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs.

We identified some shortfalls in the record keeping relating to the safe storage and application of emollient creams by care staff. Instructions were not always clear, and we found some gaps in administration. However, we discussed this with the provider on the first day of the assessment and they took immediate action to rectify this. On the second day we found enhanced systems of monitoring were in place and detailed individualised risk assessments.

Relatives gave good feedback about the support their loved ones received with their medication. This included feedback people’s medication had reduced since they moved into the home, which had improved their overall health and wellbeing.