The Glen Private Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 78 (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 had a strong proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff actively listened to concerns about safety and thoroughly investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Staff and managers understood the importance of learning from incidents, reflective practice and accurate record keeping. All staff had the opportunity to share their views on service improvement through individual reflective practice sessions following on from accidents and incidents, group staff meetings, surveys and one to one supervision sessions. Records clearly evidenced a proactive culture of learning. For example, a number of staff members had taken on champion roles within the home and undertook regular monitoring and evaluation tasks to ensure the service was working well in their areas of expertise. A member of staff told us, “We [staff team] have briefs and huddles, I assess staff knowledge and make sure learning is applied to the people we support specifically, we discuss this as a group.” Relatives spoke positively about the services approach to learning from incidents. A relative told us, “They work to put things right, I could not fault it.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. The service worked closely with health and social care partners and ensured information was accurate and ready to be shared should a person require the support of other services.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff received training in safeguarding and understood how to identify and report safeguarding issues. Inspectors reviewed the services compliance with legal frameworks, people can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that the service was working in accordance with current legal requirements.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. The service worked to minimise risks to people whilst maintaining their right to autonomy and respecting their preferences. Staff and managers worked collaboratively with people and their relatives to produce person-centred care plans and risk assessments.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The service undertook regular auditing and governance of the care environment, this included fire safety and equipment monitoring. Accurate records were kept in relation to building maintenance.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. The service followed safe recruitment practices in line with current guidelines. This included reference checks, identity checks and Disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks. DBS checks are a way a provider can make safer recruitment decisions and prevent unsuitable staff from working with people. Staff received appropriate training and support to enable them to do their jobs well. The service had a stable staff team with several long-standing members of staff and a low staff turnover rate. We observed sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff received training in infection prevention and control to protect people from the risk of infection. The premises was clean and tidy. The service had an infection control champion who observed infection control across the services and ensured staff practice remained up to date.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Medicines were managed safely and clear records were kept. Regular auditing of medicines administration took place to ensure any errors could be identified and addressed promptly.