Glynn Court Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. This meant people did not always feel well supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People, relatives and a healthcare professional told us staff treated people kindly and respectfully. This was evident throughout our site visits, where we observed staff interacting with people in a caring and compassionate manner.

Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity. They offered help discreetly and ensured people received assistance with personal hygiene behind closed doors. They were aware of their duty of confidentiality, taking care to discuss people’s care needs only in private.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities and aspirations.

Staff knew people very well and understood how they preferred their care to be provided. However, people’s care plans lacked detail about their life histories and unique cultural backgrounds, and how these might affect individual preferences and needs. Consequently, the provider could not be certain people would receive care in line with their individual needs and preferences in the event of the home being staffed by new or temporary staff who did not know people.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always have choice and control over their own care and wellbeing.

The registered manager and staff were aware of the importance of encouraging people’s independence. They promoted independence with eating and drinking by providing equipment where needed, such as plate guards and suitable cups and beakers, enabling people to eat and drink without assistance.

However, staff did not always promote people’s ability to stand and walk. This had the potential to restrict their ability to move around when they chose, reducing their independence. In the lounge, we observed people remaining seated without attempting to mobilise unless prompted by staff. People did not have their walking frames to hand, as these were stowed away around the edge of the room. Those who had been assessed as needing assistance with mobility had sensor mats in front of their chairs, which sounded an alarm for staff when people stepped on them. Some staff told us they would attend straight away to provide the person’s walking aid and any assistance needed. However, a member of staff explained that due to staffing levels, staff were concerned about people who were at risk of falling being unsafe if they mobilised without assistance, and some staff felt keeping walking frames away from people was a way of addressing this.

Relatives confirmed they were able to visit whenever it suited their family member and themselves. Some relatives visited during mealtimes to assist their family member to eat.

The registered manager and staff listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. They responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were alert to people needing assistance and provided this discreetly. They were observant and anticipated people’s comfort needs, for example, placing pillows or cushions to help them sit comfortably. People who were able to use call bells said staff came quickly when they requested assistance. During both days of our visit, staff were swift to answer call bells.

The provider did not always care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff who we spoke with told us consistently that whilst they felt the registered manager valued them, they did not always feel the provider did. They said the provider did not give them thanks or appreciation for their work. Staff confirmed they received paid time to complete the online training required by the provider. Two staff told us some courses took longer to complete than the paid time allowed.

Staff voiced their frustration about being unable to provide unhurried, individualised care to people because staffing levels did not allow them to spend time with individuals. Some felt the intensity of working at high demand was impacting on their sense of wellbeing.

Following the inspection the provider told us they recognise the importance of staff wellbeing and continue to review how best to support and recognise staff across the service. They told us they had taken measures to help stabilise staffing levels and support both people and staff.