Glenwood Care 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 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 71 (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. For example, care records reviewed showed a clear understanding of each person’s physical health, emotional wellbeing, communication needs and social preferences. Support planning reflected personal history, routines and interests, helping staff support the whole person in a consistent way. Staff worked with professionals, including speech and language therapists and occupational therapists, to assess and meet people’s needs. Professional guidance, such as eating and drinking support and sensory plans, was included in care records and followed in practice. Support plans and assessments were reviewed and updated following changes or incidents, ensuring support remained relevant and reflected people’s current needs.

The provider did not consistently follow appropriate guidance to ensure people’s care was delivered in line with current standards. Several features of the care home environment were not aligned with the principles and values of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. Which is the guidance on how providers should support autistic people and people with a learning disability. For example, there was prominent signage displayed throughout the home providing instructions for staff, including ‘do’s and don’ts’. Staff were observed wearing lanyards both within the home and when supporting people in the community, and nursing staff wore uniform tunics displaying the provider’s logo, clearly identifying their roles. A large external sign displaying the care home name and provider logo was visible, clearly identifying the premises as a care facility. Notice boards were positioned in communal areas, including hallways, displaying information about the staff team and activity schedules. A clinical wheelie bin was stored at the front of the property and, although within a secure compound, remained visible through the fence.

These features did not fully reflect the principles of Right Culture, as they created a more service-led and institutional feel rather than a homely, person-centred environment.

These issues were raised with management on day 1 of the visit. By day 2, the registered manager had taken prompt action, including removing internal signage, staff lanyards and uniforms, and ensuring the clinical bin was no longer visible. The registered manager acknowledged the concerns regarding the external signage, and discussions were ongoing with the provider about its appropriateness.

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. For example, staff worked collaboratively with healthcare professionals, sharing key information during hospital admissions and following discharge. Within the home, staff used shared records to monitor health and wellbeing and respond to changes, supporting continuity of care.

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. For example, people were supported to reduce their reliance on ‘as required’ medication through proactive and personalised approaches to care, helping them to remain more stable and comfortable. Staff supported people to increase their participation in meaningful activities which reflected their interests, which improved their engagement, confidence and emotional wellbeing. People were supported to make progress towards their personal goals, including developing independence and achieving significant life transitions. Staff worked consistently with people, adapting support to meet their changing needs and focusing on what mattered most to them. This included supporting people to build daily living skills, access the community and develop routines to promote both physical and emotional wellbeing.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. For example, care plans were treated as working documents and were looked at regularly with people, not just at set review times. Staff used recognised tools, regular wellbeing checks, and everyday conversations to spot even small changes in health, emotional wellbeing, or preferences early on. This approach helped make sure care plans always gave a clear, up-to-date picture of each person’s needs, wishes, and goals.

When advice or guidance was received from professionals such as physiotherapists or GPs it was acted on straight away. Care plans were updated the same day, and any changes were shared during handovers and team meetings to make sure everyone was working together as professionals.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. For example, records showed care plans reflected people’s preferences and how they wanted support. During observations, staff offered clear choices about where people spent time, what they ate or drank, and how support was provided. Family members said they were involved in decisions and consent was sought, with one stating, “They always get our permission.” Mental Capacity Act assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place where needed, and records showed consent to care and treatment was recorded and kept up to date.