Glenwood Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 85 (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 was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. For example, observations showed staff interacted with people in a warm, patient and respectful way, taking time to engage, listen and respond to individual preferences. Staff spoke calmly and reassuringly, building trust and positive relationships. Feedback from family members strongly reflected the caring culture within the home. One family member said, “Yes, definitely, without a doubt,” when asked if their relative was treated with kindness and respect, while another described staff as, “Amazing” and said their relative had, “A brilliant key worker.”

Families described positive outcomes from the care provided. One relative told us, “[Relative] is so much more engaged and really enjoys the activities, I can’t praise Glenwood enough,” while another said their relative was, “Very happy, always clean, tidy and dressed.”

People were supported to maintain personal appearance and comfort, and staff promoted privacy and independence during care. Consistent staffing meant people were supported by familiar staff who knew them well. Staff showed a strong understanding of people as individuals. Care plans included personal histories, preferences and routines, and families confirmed staff used this knowledge to guide care and build meaningful relationships.

Staff supported people to maintain and, where needed, rebuild important relationships. In one example, staff worked with a person and those important to them to gradually re-establish family contact, recognising how meaningful this was to the individual.

The provider treated people as individuals and was exceptional in how they made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. For example, staff showed an exceptional understanding of each person’s needs, preferences, strengths and background. Care plans included detailed information about interests, routines and personal history. Records showed staff supported people to take part in activities based on personal preferences, including community outings, hobbies and social events. Families said staff took time to get to know people and used this in daily care. One relative told us, “Staff asked detailed questions about what [relative] likes and wants and they relate to them based on the information I have shared.” People experienced clear improvements from this personalised support. One family member told us, “[Relative] is now a lot brighter and more engaged.” Staff supported people to maintain and develop interests. People attended music sessions, drumming groups, concerts, pub outings and trips to places such as the cathedral and other community venues, helping build confidence and social connections. Support was flexible and centred around each person. One relative said, “I turn up whenever I want, they are accommodating,” showing staff adapted routines to suit people and their families.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. For example, people chose what time they got up, went to bed, ate meals and how they spent their day. Staff supported these choices and adapted routines around each person rather than following set schedules. People chose where they spent their time, including shared areas or their own rooms, and whether to take part in activities or spend time alone. Staff encouraged independence without pressure, offering support in a person-led way so people remained in control of their daily routines. Families described support which promoted independence and choice in daily life. One relative said, “[Relative] has a lot of activities, and they make sure she is engaging. It’s first class.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. For example, care plans included clear guidance to help staff recognise early signs of change, such as infection, distress or low mood, and take prompt action, including seeking medical advice. Staff adapted routines and activities if people felt unwell, tired or anxious, keeping care flexible and person led. Emotional wellbeing was supported through reassurance and personalised approaches to reduce anxiety.

People had access to call systems to request help, alongside regular staff checks during the day and night, ensuring support was available when needed.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. For example, systems were in place to support staff development and wellbeing. Staff completed training and competencies needed for their roles, helping them feel confident and skilled in supporting people.

Regular team meetings gave staff opportunities to share information, reflect on practice and learn from incidents, helping maintain safe and consistent care.