The Glades

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This service scored 75 (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. People’s needs were assessed prior to their admission into the service. Any expected outcomes were identified, and care and support were regularly reviewed to help ensure it was relevant to people’s current needs. One relative said “I attend care reviews and have a copy of the care plan. I feel able to discuss any issues.” Another relative said, “I attend a care review every 12 months.”

The provider involved people in planning and delivering their care and treatment, including what was important to them, in line with legislation and current best practice. Care records reflected people's preferences, likes, dislikes and personal goals, enabling staff to provide person-centred support. People told us they were offered choice, including in relation to meals and activities.

We observed people eating together in a relaxed and sociable environment. Mealtimes were a positive experience, providing opportunities for interaction and shared activity. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's individual needs and described how they supported specific health risks, including eating and drinking difficulties, specialist feeding and epilepsy management.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing assessments when people moved between services. Plans for transition, referral, and discharge considered people’s individual circumstances, ongoing care arrangements, and expected outcomes.

People were supported to attend appointments with professionals, which promoted coordinated care. Records showed people accessed a range of health and social care professionals, such as GPs, and where required, regular multi-disciplinary meetings took place. 

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.

Staff communicated effectively with people, offering reassurance, choice, and support. People were encouraged to be healthy and maintain independence within the home. We saw that people were actively going out to take part in different activities in the community.

 People were supported to attend their annual health check‑ups, and staff worked with external healthcare professionals to ensure appointments were arranged and followed up. This helped promote people’s well-being and supported early identification of any changes in their health needs.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Care and support were regularly reviewed and updated to ensure people’s needs were met. Written reviews of care were documented in people’s care and support plans. Any changes in care were clearly rationalised.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People told us their consent was sought by staff before they received care and support. Staff demonstrated they understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They described how they supported people to consent and gave examples of when decisions were made in people’s best interests when they were unable to consent to their care. Care records we reviewed confirmed this.