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 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 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.

Relatives spoke positively about their relationships with staff and management and described an open culture.

Staff and managers worked together to provide consistent, person-centred support. This helped create a culture where people and those important to them felt included and listened to.

The provider had capable and inclusive leaders who understood the needs of people using the service and supported staff to provide good quality care. The registered manager was visible within the service and worked closely with staff, people and relatives.

Leaders demonstrated a commitment to making the service accessible and inclusive. Managers were available to provide guidance and support to staff and encouraged continued learning and development.

Managers listened to feedback and responded when issues were raised. This helped promote an open culture where staff and relatives felt able to speak with leaders and contribute to the development of the service.

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. Relatives described communication with the service as open and felt able to challenge or question aspects of people’s care when needed.

The provider also used surveys to gather feedback from people using the service, relatives and staff about what was working well and where improvements could be made. This provided additional opportunities for people to share their views and raise any concerns.

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, “The manager is very good and helpful.”

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 develop in their roles and had access to training relevant to their work and the needs of people using the service. This helped promote a workforce where individual differences were respected, and staff could contribute their skills and experience to the care and support people received.

The provider did not always operate effective systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Although there were governance arrangements in place, these had not identified all of the concerns found during our assessment.

For example, the provider’s checks had not identified unexplained gaps within some staff employment histories, the absence of associated risk assessments, or the medicines omission we identified during our review.

We discussed these concerns with the registered manager, who acknowledged the areas requiring improvement and told us they would review the relevant systems and records.

The provider had other systems in place to monitor the service, including audits, reviews of people’s care and opportunities for people, relatives and staff to provide feedback. Relatives told us communication with the service was good and that concerns were generally responded to.

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.

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 promoted learning and improvement across the service. Staff completed regular training relevant to their roles and people’s individual needs, and managers supported staff to develop their knowledge and skills. Learning was discussed within the staff team so that improvements could be incorporated into day-to-day practice.

The provider sought feedback from people, relatives and staff and used this to identify where changes or improvements were needed. Relatives described the service as responsive when issues were raised.

The provider also continued to develop how staff communicated with people, including supporting staff and managers to improve their sign language skills and making use of additional communication support where required. This demonstrated an ongoing approach to adapting the service around the needs of the people living there.