Glebe House Retirement 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 remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Relatives praised the respectful way staff interacted with their loved ones.A relative told us, “The staff interact will with [relative] and seem to have the necessary skills. They are very caring and know [relative] well.” Another relative gave us an example of staff caring approach. They said, “One day I was sitting with [relative] in the dining room because it is a quiet place and a member of staff was going into the kitchen. She stopped to tell me, quite excitedly, how [relative] had actually spoken while they were getting [relative] dressed that morning. This is a rare event for [relative] and the carer was really excited about it. I think that shows how staff feel about their work.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were recognised as individuals, and staff took time to understand and act on what mattered to them. A person told us that staff had offered to take them to a particular activity they enjoyed. Relatives described personalised approaches, a relative told us, “They take [relative] into the main sitting room when games are going on so she can watch and the staff talk to [relative] explaining who is winning or whatever is going on.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff understood the importance of promoting independence and encouraged people to do things for themselves. A person told us, how they needed to walk due to a medical condition and that staff encouraged them to do this. They said, “Staff know about [medical condition] and they like me to walk, they don’t make me, they want me to exercise and want me to do quizzes to keep my brain active. The activities person brings them to my room.” Another person said, “I get up and go to bed when I want.”

People were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family and have access to support networks that were important to them. During out inspection visits we observed relatives visiting and a person going out to lunch with their relatives. Another person told us that they went out to the local hairdresser.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told us staff responded promptly when they used the call bell. A person said, “I press the button and I know they will come; they don’t leave the bell ringing.”

A lack of people and relative involvement in care planning meant that staff may not always be aware of people’s preferences. For example, 2 people living with dementia their personal care assessment did not contain any information as to how best to support them and what their preferences around personal care were. No consideration had been given to whether they had a preference regarding male or female carers delivering their support.

Staff response to people’s needs varied widely between our first and second visits. During the first visit we needed to distract a person who was becoming distressed. During our second visit we observed staff pro-actively engaging with people and activities taking place. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us about further training they had planned with the local authority.

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

The majority of care staff told us that they felt supported and valued by an approachable management team. A member of care staff said, “Glebe Care Home is a positive, supportive and friendly place to work with a good atmosphere. I enjoy working as part of the team and feel supported to provide high-quality care to residents. However, a minority told us they did not feel supported by the management team. There were concerns regarding protected time to undertake on-line training. Several staff raised concerns that they did not get time to complete this training. We raised this with the management team who told us staff were given protected time to carry out this training during working hours and believed there had been a miscommunication. Issues of this kind can affect staff moral. We discussed with the provider actions they could take to resolve this the issue