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.. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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, “Staff have the right skills to look after [family member].”

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 and other professionals to support safe systems, pathways and transitions. Staff shared relevant information about people’s care and support needs to help maintain continuity of care. They understood the importance of communicating changes in people’s needs and ensuring appropriate information was available when people accessed other services.

Staff worked with health and social care professionals when required and followed professional guidance to support people safely. This helped ensure care remained coordinated and responsive when people’s circumstances or needs changed.

The provider had systems in place to safeguard people from abuse and avoidable harm. Safeguarding policies and procedures supported staff to recognise, report and respond to concerns appropriately. The provider’s procedures set out how concerns should be escalated and managed when identified.

Staff understood people’s individual communication needs and recognised that changes in a person’s behaviour or presentation could indicate that something was wrong. This helped staff identify potential concerns and take appropriate action when needed. The systems in place provided assurance that concerns could be recognised and responded to appropriately to help protect people from harm.

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, "Carers and management are nice, caring and very supportive and understand [family member’s] needs very well.”

The provider had arrangements to identify and respond to environmental risks which could affect the safe delivery of people’s care and support. An environmental assessment had been completed to identify potential hazards within the person’s home and consider how these could be managed safely.

Staff were aware of environmental risks and understood their responsibility to report any concerns they identified. Where issues were identified, staff knew these should be escalated through the appropriate channels so action could be taken. This helped support the safe delivery of care while respecting the person’s independence and right to live safely in their own home.

The provider did not always make sure recruitment processes were robust enough to demonstrate staff suitability. We reviewed staff recruitment records and found some staff had unexplained gaps in their employment history. There was no recorded evidence to show these gaps had been explored as part of the recruitment process, and no risk assessments had been completed in relation to the unexplained periods. This meant the provider could not fully demonstrate that all relevant information had been considered when assessing staff suitability.

We raised this with the registered manager, who acknowledged the concern and told us they would review the records, obtain the missing information where possible and consider whether further risk assessment was required.

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 support people when needed. Staff had completed training relevant to their roles and the needs of people living at the service.

Staff knew people well and demonstrated an understanding of how to provide safe and consistent support. The provider also had systems in place to support staff development and maintain their skills and knowledge.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection in relation to the care and support provided. Systems were in place to support safe infection prevention and control practices within people’s homes.

Staff had received infection prevention and control training and understood their responsibilities for reducing the risk of infection while providing personal care. They understood the importance of following appropriate hygiene practices and reporting any concerns that could affect people’s safety.

The provider had arrangements in place to monitor infection prevention and control practices and to respond where improvements were needed.

The provider made sure medicines were managed safely and in a way that reflected people’s individual needs and preferences. 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. The provider had systems in place to support safe medicines management and to identify and respond to any concerns relating to people’s medicines. This helped ensure medicines continued to be managed safely and appropriately.