Glen Pat Homes

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 requires improvement with a breach of regulation 18 (staffing) At this assessment the rating is good with no breaches.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (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. Concerns were taken seriously and action was taken when issues were identified. Relatives told us staff and managers were open with them and responded when they raised concerns. One relative told us, “If they are not sure they will discuss in a meeting and things get resolved.”

The provider had systems for staff to report and discuss accidents, incidents and concerns so learning could be identified and shared. This helped staff reflect on events and make improvements to people’s care and support.

The provider worked with people, their relatives and healthcare professionals to maintain safe systems of care. Staff considered people’s individual communication and support needs when they accessed other services and planned ahead to help ensure continuity of care.

Relatives told us healthcare appointments were organised in advance and staff provided support when required. One relative said, “Such things are always planned well in advance so that reasonable adjustments can be planned well ahead.” This was important so appropriate arrangements could be made because of people’s sensory and communication care needs and for any required information and support to be adapted for them.

The provider worked with people and those important to them to help protect people from abuse, discrimination and avoidable harm. Staff understood people’s individual communication needs and how changes in their behaviour or presentation could indicate that something was wrong. Staff completed their safeguarding training.

Relatives consistently told us they felt people were safe and well supported. One relative said, “The staff know how to communicate using sign language and my [family member] is understood like if [they] are feeling unwell the staff understand [my family member].” Another relative told us, “[family member] feels safe and knows the staff well.”

The provider had safeguarding procedures in place and staff demonstrated they were able to recognise, report and respond to concerns appropriately.

The provider worked with people and those important to them to understand and manage risks in a personalised way. Before people moved to the service, staff met with them and their relatives to discuss their care needs, routines, likes, dislikes and how they preferred to be supported. This information was used to help identify potential risks and plan how these could be managed safely.

Relatives told us staff knew people well and adapted their approach to reflect people’s individual needs. One relative told us, “They gradually introduce new staff and observe them how they are with residents and give them time to get to know each other to get on well and feel safe and confident around each other.” This helped reduce anxiety associated with unfamiliar people and supported people to feel safe and secure.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks within the care environment. The home was generally clean and well maintained, with no unpleasant odours, and people’s bedrooms were clean.

During our visit, we identified a number of environmental concerns, including a leaning garden fence, unsecured cleaning materials and cleaning equipment partially obstructing a narrow corridor leading to the garden. We also found that the annual fire extinguisher servicing was overdue.

We also found safety concerns about the layout of the downstairs bathroom. A washing machine was positioned close to the shower and sink, with an electrical socket nearby. A separate area containing a tumble dryer, boiler and other electrical equipment was let unsecured and unlocked at the time of our visit. This meant people using the service could have had access to this area and come to harm. There was no risk assessment in place to demonstrate these risks had been considered and mitigated, particularly for people who may have limited awareness of environmental hazards.

Following the assessment, the provider told us they would take action to address the environmental issues that we had identified.

The provider did not always ensure recruitment processes were sufficiently robust to demonstrate staff suitability. However, there were enough staff to meet people’s individual needs and keep them safe. Staffing levels were sufficient during our visit, and staff were available to provide support when needed. Staff were familiar with people’s individual needs and understood how people preferred to be supported.

Staff had completed training relevant to their roles and the needs of people living at the service. Most people were deaf and used sign language to communicate. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual communication needs and were able to explain how they adapted their approach to support people effectively. This helped ensure people were supported by staff who understood their communication methods and individual support needs.

We identified some gaps within staff recruitment records where periods of employment history had not been fully accounted for. There was no recorded evidence to demonstrate these gaps had been explored as part of the recruitment process and a risk assessment had been carried out. This meant the provider could not consistently demonstrate that all relevant information had been considered when assessing whether staff were suitable to work with people, which could increase the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

Following the assessment, the registered manager reviewed the recruitment records of current staff and provided assurance that employment histories had been checked to ensure gaps were accounted for.

Overall, staffing arrangements were sufficient and staff were suitably trained and familiar with people’s needs. However, improvement was needed to ensure recruitment processes and records consistently demonstrated that all relevant information had been considered when assessing staff suitability.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. The home was clean and well maintained, with no unpleasant odours. People’s bedrooms, bathrooms and communal areas were clean, and we observed appropriate standards of hygiene throughout the service.

Staff had received infection prevention and control training and understood their responsibilities for maintaining a clean environment and reducing the risk of infection. The provider had systems in place for regular cleaning and monitoring of infection control practices.

The provider did not always make sure medicines were managed safely and in line with people’s prescribed treatment. Although medicines systems were generally in place, these did not always identify omissions promptly or ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff worked with prescribing doctors to make sure people’s medicines continued to meet their needs. This included supporting people to reduce medicines when appropriate, in line with the principles of STOMP, the national programme to reduce inappropriate use of psychotropic medicines for people with a learning disability and autistic people. Medicines, including controlled drugs, were stored securely and in line with the provider’s medicines policy and relevant guidance.

While checking the medicines in stock in the home, we identified that 1 person had not received their prescribed morning medicines. The omission had not been identified through the provider’s usual checking arrangements, and as a result no action had been taken to ensure the person’s received all their morning medicines, until we identified the concerns.

The registered manager responded promptly once the omission was identified, sought advice from the GP and NHS 111, recorded the incident and followed this up with staff.