Glenkindie Lodge Residential Care 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

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 changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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 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.

At the start of our assessment, the provider made us aware they digital system they used had been identified as inadequate; therefore, they were changing across to a new digital system. We reviewed care plans and risk assessments on both the old and new system, as the provider felt confident the new system would reflect a higher standard of person-centred care. We found this was not the case and people’s care plans remained generic. For example, some people who were likely to experience emotional distress, due to their conditions, had behaviour care plans in place. The guidance and suggested interventions for staff were generic and mirrored other people’s behavioural care plans as opposed to providing person centred guidance, and details of what would work for each individual person.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

We found that the provider supported people to access the health and care professionals they needed, for example, they provided regular Chiropodist and Optician visits. However, they did not always send referrals to relevant health professionals when an existing, or new need arose for people. This meant people were not always able to access the care they required.

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

Information for people, such as service user guides and care plan documentation, was not adapted into a format that people could understand and access. Some people told us they had not seen their own care plans and risk assessments.

Additionally, we found that confidential information was not always protected. During our time at the service, we found an office which contained confidential information in paper form, was unlocked with the door propped open and unsupervised. This included information about people using the service, and staff.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

We found some evidence that the provider had started to seek feedback from people, however, they were yet to change practices and embed people’s feedback into the service.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Some people’s communication needs were not consistently being met, for example, one person whose first language was not English, had translation cards in place. However, these were not being used by staff. We observed multiple occasions when this person was trying to communicate a need with staff, and this need was not met.

The provider had implemented dementia friendly signage throughout the home, which supported people to identify items, such as bathrooms, toilets and lounges.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Some people were able to communicate their needs, wishes and preferences to staff and leaders. We found these people’s care plans and outcomes to be more person centred than those who had additional communication needs, as the provider had not worked with everyone equally to ascertain this information. Therefore, their experience of care was generic and often reflected meeting the needs of the business, as opposed to the needs of the person themselves.

People were not always 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.

End of life care plans did not contain sufficient information. They were not person centred and contained only information about people’s wishes after death. There was no reflection of people’s preferences in the lead up to the end of their life such as their values, how they wished to be cared for, and who they would like to be around them towards the end of their life.