The Glen Care 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff knew how to report safety incidents, and these were investigated by the management team. The provider had learned from previous safety incidents and had strengthened their systems to enable them to analyse themes and trends from behaviour incidents, infections and falls. Learning from incidents was shared in staff meetings and one-to-one meetings with staff. One staff member told us, “Since the [registered] manager started, there have been lots of changes and things have improved. The [registered] manager teaches us to be more observant and responsive.”

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. For example, where the provider had identified they were no longer able to meet people’s behavioural needs, the provider had worked closely with commissioners to ensure they were supported into more appropriate placements. The provider was working closely with mental health services to ensure staff had the required skills and knowledge to work with people who presented with distressed behaviours. One professional visiting the service told us, “I have found the management team of the home to be receptive to suggestions our team makes, and they readily engage with our team.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The provider investigated safeguarding incidents and shared concerns quickly and appropriately with the relevant authorities. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to identify and report abuse. One staff member told us, “I have had my safeguarding training. I am confident the [registered] manager would deal with a safeguarding incident but if I wasn’t I would refer it to the local authority safeguarding team or the CQC.” Where people needed to be deprived of their liberty to keep them safe, the provider ensured a deprivation of liberty safeguard (DoLS) was applied for through the relevant local authority.

Although staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them, care plans did not always include up-to-date information or enough detail about their risks. For example, where the provider was supporting one person with their behavioural needs, their care plan did not include enough detail about the measures the provider had already been taking to identify triggers for behaviours and ongoing health checks. Where one person had capacity to make unwise decisions about their health, their care plan did not include enough detail about how staff could guide them to manage their health risks. Where another person required their drinks to be thickened, their care plan did not include enough information about the type and quantity of thickener required. When we informed the registered manager about these issues, they addressed them straight away and showed us evidence of how they did this.

Although the provider had already identified improvements were required with care plans to ensure they were kept up-to-date and accurate, following feedback from the inspection team, they put a plan in place straight away, detailing how and when they would make these improvements by.

Where equipment was required to support people with their mobility needs, this was available and used safely by trained staff.

People had Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPS) in place to guide staff how to evacuate people safely in the event of an emergency.

There were effective systems in place to ensure the environment was kept safe.

Routine testing took place for fire alarms and evacuation procedures.

Environmental risk assessments were in place such as fire safety, gas safety and water safety. These were up-to-date and where issues were identified, these had been addressed or there was a plan in place to address them.

Environmental audits took place to monitor the safety of the premises and equipment.

The signage, decoration and other adaptations to the premises helped to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.

There were grab rails and specialist equipment available to support people who needed these. People were provided with specialist beds, hoists, and other equipment. There were coded doors to help restrict access to non-communal areas to keep people safe.

Safe recruitment procedures had been improved since our last inspection to ensure staff being employed were of suitable character and fit for the role. There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. The provider used a dependency tool to calculate the numbers of staff they needed. Staff felt they delivered safe care and had received the training required to undertake their roles safely. One staff member told us, “I have had all my training including safeguarding and more recently positive behaviour training. The management is very proactive and hold meetings to discuss poor examples of care.”

Team meetings, one-to-one meetings and daily handovers were in place to support staff to provide safe care to people.

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. Legionella assessments were carried out in line with requirements. Staff were provided with appropriate personal protective equipment and were observed wearing this appropriately. Staff had received training to support with minimising the risk of infection and information about safe infection prevention and control practices was displayed throughout the care home. There was an up-to-date infection prevention and control policy in place.

Although safe medicines practice was observed from nurses and people received their medicines as prescribed, medicines management records required further improvements. For example, where one person required their medication to be given covertly, their risk assessment required more detail about how it would be administered. Where another person had declined to take their medicines, this had not always been recorded. We found some medicines stock counts were not accurate. There were gaps in the recording of the medicines room cleaning records and fridge temperatures had not always been reset in line with the care home’s protocols. When we informed the registered manager about these issues, they addressed them straight away and showed us evidence of how they did this.

People told us they received their medicines safely. One person told us, “I do get it on time, and I always ask what I am taking, and they always tell me.” One professional visiting the service told us, “I enjoy going to The Glen. The service has really improved in how they manage people’s medicines and is really responsive.”

Staff responsible for managing people’s medicines had received the required training.

The provider had an up-to-date medicines policy.