Glebe House Retirement Home

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 has remained 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 64 (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 have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement.

Although the management team described to us their plans for the future of the service these had not been articulated to the wider care team. This did not facilitate mutual trust between leaders and staff. If staff were not aware of the providers vision for the service, they were not able to buy-into the vision and understand the challenges to achieving that vision.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The leadership team were open and honest with us during our inspection visits. They acknowledged the failings we identified during the inspection and took action to remedy them. The registered manager told us they felt supported by the provider with regular support calls. A member of care staff said, “[Management team] always listen to concerns without judgement and we feel safe and comfortable to raise concerns and they always support to overcome the situation.” The majority of care staff told us Glebe House was a good place to work.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Relatives told us they felt able to approach the registered manager with any concerns. A relative said, “I can go into the office at any time and talk about any issue that interest me.” Another relative said, “The management team are very approachable and always polite and friendly.”

Most care staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and that they would be dealt with appropriately.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Most staff said colleagues worked well together and treated each other with respect. was available, Staff had completed Training on equality and human rights. A member of care staff said, “Glebe Care Home is a positive, supportive and friendly place to work with good atmosphere. I enjoy working as part of the team and feel supported to provide high-quality care to residents.” Another said, “Glebe House is a good place to work.”

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

Audits and quality assurance processes carried out by the management team had not identified the concerns we found during the inspection, particularly in relation to the quality of the environment and people’s involvement in their care planning. With regard to care planning the provider had recently introduced an electronic care planning system and staff raised concerns regarding their training in relation to this. We discussed this with the provider who told us lessons would be learnt from this service when introducing the new system to their other service. Concerns regarding the environment were addressed by the provider during our inspection with plans for future improvements.

The registered manager carried out investigations into complaints and accidents and incidents. However, these needed to be more robust with an explanation of why conclusions were drawn.

A variety of other audits were carried out including medication, environment and infection control. We discussed with the management team that these need to be less of a tick box exercise with more of a focus on why they were being carried out. This would improve the overall quality of the audit enabling deficiencies to be identified and appropriate action to be taken.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

There was evidence in care plans to demonstrate the registered manager and staff worked in positive partnerships with external health professionals including the local GP practice.

The local authority told us, “I have always found [registered manager] very quick to respond and open to working with the council.”

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The registered manager analysed accidents and incident in the service and any learning from this was shared with the care team. However, we observed that some practices in the service did not support the delivery of effective care particularly for those living with dementia. On our first visit to the service, we observed people sitting in the lounge with the television on quite loudly. The arrangement of the furniture did not facilitate people’s social engagement. Signage and decoration in the service did not support those living with dementia to remain independent. The registered manager told us they had arranged for the local authority to visit the service and provide dementia training to staff. We also signposted the management team to other external resources to support improvement.