Glenmoor House 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

People’s care plans were developed from recognised risk assessment and monitoring tools. People’s needs were reviewed regularly and any changes were reflected in people’s care plans. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and preferences. People had access to healthcare services and support, when needed. People were offered enough to eat and drink to maintain their health. Staff were aware of people’s dietary needs and risks were managed. People were encouraged and supported to make their own decisions where possible and their consent to care and treatment was sought. Staff were trained, skilled and knowledgeable in providing effective care that met people’s needs. Staff worked effectively with other external bodies support people to remain healthy and promote positive outcomes.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There is a person centred approach to assessing needs and planning care, whereby the person and their relatives were involved. These were reviewed regularly or as their needs changed. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and individual preferences. Audits enabled the nurses and management to monitor people needs and risks effectively.

Nurses and senior care staff received additional training to develop people’s care plans and to complete evaluations.

Managers reviewing the risk assessments and care plans to update them all to the same standard, and this was kept under constant review.

People told us their health needs were met and they referred to health professionals such as GPs and dietitians in a timely way. One person said, “The doctor comes here to see me and I get my medication when I need it. I have been offered physiotherapy, and I go out to the dentist and the optician.” People were provided with food and drink that met their preferences and needs. Where people required support to eat, staff assisted in a caring, sensitive and dignified manner. A relative said, “[Name] eats and drinks well, I have no concerns there.[Name] has a soft diet.”

People’s wellbeing and health was reviewed regularly. This included monthly clinical observations and weights. Staff and nurses were vigilant and when people became unwell, they understood that even when clinical observations are ok, obs are ok, that changes in behaviour show deterioration.

People's health needs were well managed; clinical risks were monitored with regular checks and referrals were made when required. Training and guidance provided enabled staff to provide evidence based care. People’s nutritional and dietary needs were met. Management shared ongoing issues with the GP support for the service. The CQC team has shared these with Primary Care Inspector.

People felt assured that staff had up to date information about their care needs and the support they needed.

Nursing staff felt confident to challenge services where they did not provide the care needed, for example, where the GP practice had not responded in a timely way to when people's health was of concern and a delay in new or repeat prescriptions meant people did not have their medicines they needed.

A paramedic had provided feedback through a survey that showed staff provided all the information they needed.

Management and staff worked together to improve information and communication. For example the handover information had been reviewed for its effectiveness and changed to provide staff with more detail about people’s current needs.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People were monitored closely and referred to health professionals for advice and treatment. For example, a person’s risk of malnutrition was assessed from very high to no risk as staff followed nutritional advice and continually monitored them. A person’s daily seating position had been moved as they were experiencing lots of falls. Staff established the person would see activity and try and walk towards it, and since moving to a quieter area, the person no longer gets up to investigate and has had no falls. Furthermore, the person has been more settled and staff regularly goes to see them so they do not become lonely.

Staff understood the importance of consistent and regular monitoring outcomes for people to improve their health and wellbeing. This included clinical care and to meet people’s expectations of their own wellbeing. A nurse gave the following example, to demonstrate this, “I like to think we really know our residents and we like to do personal care as well, assist with meals and drinks; and we know when they are not right, and can see if hospital admission looming or change in behaviour.”

Handover information shows a building picture of people’s daily needs and where changing needs are identified and acted upon.

People told us and we observed staff sought people’s consent before they were supported. A person told us staff always sought their consent before they were assisted and added, "There’s always staff around when you need. They are lovely, always respectful and will ask me if there's anything else I need before they leave." A relative said, “I have power of attorney for health and finance,[staff] do phone regularly from the home to update me on [Name].”

The manager demonstrated a good understanding of Mental Capacity Assessments (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They told us that recent improvements to oversight had been made to ensure staff had the information needed to meet people’s needs where they could not express this for themselves. This included the implementation of a DoLS care plan with a monthly review instead of an annual review. We saw this evidenced in people's records. The manager told us that all staff had been given a quick reference guide to the MCA principles to support them with delivering people's care. Staff we spoke with confirmed this. Staff supported people to make decisions and knew how to raise concerns about people’s capacity to make decisions. People had decision specific MCA in place and associated care plans. DoLS were applied for where needed and there were systems in place to ensure conditions were adhered to.

Individualised decision specific mental capacity assessments and associated care plans were in place for people and where decisions had to made in people's best interest there was evidence of family involvement. Where people had fluctuating capacity or where people could make some decisions this was detailed in their care plans and included guidance for staff as to how people would communicate their own decisions. A DoLS tracker enabled management to monitor the progress of new applications and when renewals were due. Where people had conditions to be adhered to on their DoLS the home manager ensured these were met. There was no one using an advocacy service at the time of the inspection, but the manager understood how to access this if it should be needed in the future.