Archived: Glenholme

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 inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect. Records showed that people who had positive behaviour plans (PBS) in place that advised staff how to support people were not being followed, and people were not treated with kindness, compassion dignity or respect.

This service scored 30 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. We observed practice that did not treat people with privacy or dignity. We reported this concern to the service to be raised as a safeguarding concern. We reviewed care records that showed people were not treated with kindness, empathy or compassion. On review of people care records it was noted one person who was dealing with bereavement was told by staff “stop being so miserable and just cheer up” People were not supported appropriately and the actions the service took increased people’s distress. When we asked the registered manager how they ensured people were treated with dignity and respect they said, “To the best I can, but you can see where I am. I am in the basement there is nowhere for me to go.” As their office was located in the basement it was difficult for the manager to observe if people were being treated with dignity and respect.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. We found people’s care and support needs were not consistently meeting their needs and preferences. Practices were often institutionalised by having “usual drink times.” However, people’s rooms were decorated how they wanted to be decorated. One person we spoke with said, “Yeah, my bedroom is purple and green. I love purple.”

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. We observed several posters displayed around the service which evidenced people were limited on choice and control. One poster relating to meal choices read “Please make sure there is no offer of anything else, these items will be what will be purchased weekly. 5 choices for breakfast and 5 for lunch.” People were not encouraged to be independent. Only 1 individual was supported to make their own meals. The registered manager said, “The reason the staff do all the cooking for the rest of them, is more to do with the size of the kitchen than them being able to do it themselves.” We saw there were 2 kitchens at the service, and we found most people were able and had minimal care needs, although they were not supported to maintain their independence to use the kitchen.

The provider and staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. We reviewed records that showed people’s distress was not minimised and staff practice escalated concerns. The care environment was dated, half of the call bell system was not electronic and if not responded to within seconds Staff could not be assured who had called for assistance, we spoke to the registered manager and they said, “We have no system in place to check they are being responded to appropriately. Systems are not analysed. I'm only one person I cannot do it. One side of the home is a bell system the other side is an electronic system but has been in place about 11 years”

The provider did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. We found staff were not supported appropriately There was no evidence of staff having access to wellbeing services and staff were not actively encouraged to give feedback on the service. There was a lack of supervisions carried out and no appraisals conducted. There was no monitoring of staff’s performance. Staff were not incentivised or motivated to perform well. One staff member said, “Some people just come to work, just to work. They do not bother to read the handover and that can make it harder.” However, since we began our assessment, the service increased staffing levels and one staff member said, “Now we have the extra staff it is more manageable. It was not before”