Glenkindie Lodge Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 46 (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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were not effectively assessed and communicated with staff. Information within care plans and risk assessments did not always correspond with each other and contained contradictory information. There was insufficient guidance and instruction to enable staff to safely meet people’s needs.

One person told us, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen my care plans”, and when asked if they were involved in their care reviews, “no, I don’t think I’ve ever had one.”

Staff told us that they didn’t always read people’s care plans and risk assessments. People and relatives told us they were not involved in reviews of their care.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People and relatives told us they were not involved in the formulation and planning of care.

Some people using the service, needed modified diets, due to allergies, health conditions, or choking risk. This information was not widely distributed to support staff to safely meet people’s nutrition and hydration needs. For example, during mealtime service, this information was not accessible to staff, and the provider relied on staff to remember everyone’s needs. This put people at risk of choking, or complications if they were given food and fluids they can’t consume, or in a form that is not suitable for them.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people.

External health professionals, that work closely with the provider, told us that communication from staff was good, and that they were a “helpful team” and “quick to follow our advice.”

Staff told us that communication between them, managers and leaders was not good. For example, when the GP would visit the service and review people’s health, the outcome of this wasn’t always shared with staff.

We found that there wasn’t always good communication between different departments, for example, between the kitchen staff and care staff. We observed people being prompted by care staff to go into the dining room for lunch at the normal time it is served; however, there had been a delay in the kitchen which had not been communicated with care staff. This led to people sat waiting for almost 30 minutes for lunch service to begin, and some becoming frustrated and leaving the dining area.

Staff told us they worked well within their own department. They felt they worked well with their colleagues, and care staff felt their handover to each other was always efficient.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

We were not assured that people’s social needs were being met. There wasn’t always provision for activities, and when there were activities planned, people felt they weren’t meaningful and did not reflect their interests or choices.

We observed that some people were not eating much. When asked about this people told us they didn’t like the food. One person told us, “You only get two choices, and neither are great”. There was a collective view that there was minimal choice, and the food was not of good quality.

The provider had done some work, in May 2026, to gather people’s preferences in relation to activities and food, however, this was yet to be embedded into the service.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

We found that desired goals and outcomes within some care plans, were left blank, and where they had been completed, were generic.

We were not assured that progress towards goals, and outcomes were being monitored with a view to improve them.

Systems in place to support this process, were not effectively utilised by staff, such as daily care records. We found entries were not person centred, and gaps in recording meant people’s day was not accurately reflected.

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when delivering care and treatment.

The provider did not always seek consent, or follow the Mental Capacity Act (MCA, 2005) when implementing restrictive practices, such as the use of bed rails and CCTV.

Mental capacity assessments were not done in line with the MCA (2005), or best practice guidance. The 5 key principles of the act had not been followed, neither had the best interest checklist. For example, some decisions had been made solely by leaders or managers within the provider, and there had been no consultations with anyone else, such as, relevant health professionals, external agencies or relatives.