Glenroyd

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 62 (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 ensured people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being and communication needs with them. Care plans were consistently person-centred, specific, and reviewed monthly without exception. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of people’s needs, including those with complex conditions such as Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy [PEG] feeding and dementia. Feedback from families confirmed that assessments reflected people’s preferences and were regularly updated.

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 used recognised tools such as MUST Waterlow, to assess nutritional risk, skin integrity, and pain management. The environment was adapted to those living with dementia.

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.

Staff and teams worked together effectively to deliver co-ordinated care. There was a strong culture of collaboration, with daily ‘huddles’, walkarounds, and open communication between departments. Staff spoke positively about the leadership and felt empowered to raise concerns and contribute to improvements. A staff member said, “I can pop into the office any time. Anyone can”. The clinical development lead provided bespoke training and monitored clinical outcomes, while the activities coordinator adapted schedules to ensure everyone could participate. Staff meetings and supervisions were used to share lessons learned and update practices following complaints or incidents.

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. We did find that improvements were needed to the dining experience.

The provider supported people to live healthier lives through proactive care planning and meaningful engagement. People had access to regular professional visits, including podiatrists, opticians, and GPs. Activities were tailored to individual interests, such as themed days and outings, and staff encouraged communication with families via tablets and mobile phones. A person’s cycling hobby was honoured with a dedicated display and a visit from a local cycling group. Nutrition and hydration were monitored, and people were supported with textured diets and diabetic meal plans. Kitchen staff demonstrated strong knowledge of different textured diets and diabetic diets, adapting meals to individual needs and preferences. However, the lunch service was slow, with some people waiting extended periods for food, which impacted the overall experience. Some relatives needed to approach staff to get the meals for loved ones due to delays. Some people told us they were hungry around mealtimes but had not been given food in a timely way.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment with the view to continuously making improvements. While people’s outcomes were positive and person centred, gaps in monitoring systems highlighted areas where further development was needed.

Overall, there had been a lot of improvement since our last inspection, and most of the documentation was fully complete and up to date. However, this was not the case for all documentation such as recording when some people had been repositioned, recorded consent and environmental checks. While the provider responded promptly to this, systems and processes were not successful in identifying these gaps.

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 did not always ensure that people’s consent to care and treatment was consistently recorded and accessible for staff. We found some consent forms were missing for 3 people, and staff could not review them when needed. This posed a risk to informed decision-making and compliance with legal requirements. Assurances were received following the inspection these were now in place. Mental Capacity Assessments and best interest decisions were in place and up to date. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of best interest decisions.