Glen Pat Homes

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 64 (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 promoted a positive and inclusive culture which focused on meeting people’s individual needs and supporting them to have a good quality of life. Staff demonstrated a shared understanding of the importance of communicating with people in ways they understood and respecting their individual preferences.

The culture of the service reflected the needs of the people living there. The provider promoted an inclusive culture which reflected people’s individual communication and sensory needs. Despite differences in how people communicated, including needs arising from hearing impairment, staff supported people to have equitable opportunities to participate, make choices and be involved in their care and daily lives. This demonstrated a commitment to reducing communication barriers and ensuring people were included in everyday life at the service.

A member of staff said, “I would recommend colleagues to come and work here at the residential home. I would also encourage my family members to join the unit should the need arise.”

Relatives spoke positively about their relationships with staff and management and described an open culture. One relative told us, “The staff are always open and approachable.”

Leadership was not always effective in identifying and addressing risks or ensuring the provider’s systems and policies were consistently followed. Although managers were visible and approachable, they had not identified and addressed all of the shortfalls we found before our assessment.

Leaders had not identified some risks associated with the premises or taken sufficient action to reduce the potential risk to people, staff and visitors. They had also not implemented the provider’s recruitment policy consistently. Some staff had been recruited without a complete employment history being obtained and gaps had not been explored and risk assessed. This meant leaders could not consistently demonstrate effective oversight of safety and staff recruitment.

However, managers understood people’s individual communication and support needs and demonstrated a commitment to developing an inclusive service. The registered manager and staff were developing their use of sign language to support effective communication with people. Managers were also available to provide guidance and support to staff.

Relatives described managers as approachable and accessible. One relative said, “I find the management very approachable.” Managers listened to feedback and responded when concerns were raised. However, improvements were needed to ensure leaders had effective oversight of risks and consistently implemented the provider’s systems and policies.

The provider supported people, relatives and staff to speak up and raise concerns. There were clear routes for concerns to be reported, and people knew who they could approach if something was wrong.

Relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns with the management team. One relative said, “If I had any concerns I would talk to the manager.” Relatives described communication with the service as open and felt able to challenge or question aspects of people’s care when needed.

Staff understood how to raise concerns through the appropriate reporting arrangements and were able to approach managers for support. This helped promote an environment where concerns could be raised openly and addressed.

A member of staff said, “I feel confident raising concerns, discussing my training needs, and seeking support from management when required.”

The provider promoted equality, diversity and inclusion within the workforce. Staff had completed relevant training, including equality and diversity training, to help them understand their responsibilities and support an inclusive working environment.

The provider valued different skills, experiences and backgrounds within the staff team. This included recruiting a deaf member of staff, whose experience and communication skills reflected the needs of many people living at the service. Other staff, including the registered manager, were also supported to develop their sign language skills.

Staff were supported to developin their roles and had access to training relevant to their work and the needs of people using the service. This helped promote a workforce whereindividual differences wererespected,and staff could contribute their skills and experience to the care and support people received.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service, including audits, care reviews and opportunities for people, relatives and staff to provide feedback. However, these arrangements had not always been fully effective in identifying or recording areas requiring improvement.

During our assessment, we identified gaps within some staff employment histories, environmental risks which required further consideration, and a medicines omission which had not been identified through the provider’s usual checking arrangements. Despite the provider’s audits and checks around the health and safety of the premises, recruitment records and medicines management, these shortfalls had not been identified so that timely action could be taken.

The failure to identify the medicines omission meant action had not been taken to ensure the person received all of their prescribed morning medicines until we identified the concern. This increased the risk that the person may not receive their medicines as prescribed.

Following the assessment, the registered manager provided additional information and assurances that they would address the identified shortfalls.

The provider worked in partnership with families, health and social care professionals and other services to support people’s individual needs. Staff sought advice and made referrals when people required additional healthcare or specialist support, and relevant information was shared to help ensure care remained coordinated.

The provider worked closely with relatives, who remained involved in people’s care where appropriate. Staff kept families informed about appointments, changes in people’s needs and other important matters, and involved them in discussions about people’s care and support.

The provider also made use of external interpreters to support effective communication with people and help reduce barriers arising from sensory and communication needs. Staff supported people to access services and opportunities within the wider community, helping them maintain links outside the home and take part in activities that were meaningful to them.

These partnerships helped ensure people received coordinated support and could access the wider services and community opportunities they needed.

The provider did not always demonstrate a consistent approach to learning and improvement. Although staff had opportunities to develop their knowledge and skills, the provider had not consistently identified areas requiring improvement or taken timely action to address potential risks within the service.

During our assessment, we identified a number of shortfalls, including environmental risks which had not been identified through the provider’s existing checks and monitoring arrangements. This meant opportunities to address potential hazards and improve safety had been missed before our assessment.

Staff completed training relevant to their roles and people’s individual needs, and managers supported staff to develop their knowledge and skills. A member of staff said, “We are continuously updating ourselves to work in the residential home so that we can meet the needs of the resident. For example, we have BSL training to address and improve communication with residents.”

The provider also sought feedback from people, relatives and staff. Relatives described the service as responsive when issues were raised. One relative told us, “If I had any worries they were nipped in the bud.”

The provider continued to develop how staff communicated with people, including supporting staff and managers to improve their sign language skills. However, further improvement was needed to ensure learning from monitoring, audits and previous shortfalls was consistently used to identify risks and drive improvements across the service.