Glebe House Retirement Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans did not evidence involvement of people where they were able. When asked about involvement in care planning a relative said, “Initial planning yes, ongoing no.” Some care plans contained generic statements which did not evidence people’s involvement in choices about their care arrangements.

Care plans we reviewed were not always detailed, person centred and tailored to people’s individual needs and wishes. For example, for a person who required a hoist for moving and handling there was no record of the type of hoist or size of sling they used. We also observed the person used a specially adapted chair but there was no mention of this in the care plan.

The provider had recently introduced an electronic care planning system. We discussed with them how they could make care plans more person centred and the support and training available to do this.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The registered manager and staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s diverse health and care needs. People received consistent support from a staff team who knew them well. Staff coordinated care with health professionals to ensure timely interventions and followed the instructions given and tracked appointments with other medical professionals which was used to update care plans and share guidance with the staff team.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Families told us communication from the service could be improved. A person told us, “Some family members live a long way away so updates on how [relative] is doing may well be a useful service.” Another said, “I sometimes feel communication could be better as I don’t often visit, maybe just call to say all is OK.”

We saw examples of the service newsletter which was sent out by e mail to relatives which gave information about activities people had taken part in.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives said staff listened and acted on their views. A relative said, “I don’t think I have had any concerns for a long while but if I have a question about anything there is no difficulty in catching [registered manager] or her assistants to talk about it.”

We observed staff involved people in day-to-day‑ decisions such as where abouts in the service they wanted to sit.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider had effective systems in place to ensure people had regular access to medical professionals. For example, GPs and other healthcare partners visited the service routinely to review people’s health needs and provide ongoing clinical oversight.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Relatives consistently reported positive experiences for their family members. A relative told us, “Glebe House comes recommended,” another said, “I can report that I always find [relative] happy at Glebe House as do her other visitors.”

Activities were available to all, with one-to-one sessions provided for those choosing to remain in their rooms, helping ensure everyone could participate‑ in meaningfully engagement if they wished.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The registered manager had worked with the local GP practice to complete a ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Play for Emergency Care and Treatment) form for people living in the service. The ReSPECT process creates a personalised recommendation for clinical care in emergency situations where people are not able to make decisions or express their wishes. A relative told us how conversations about end-of-life care had provided them with reassurance that their loved ones wishes would be followed.