Glenmoor House 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

People felt safe with the staff and the care provided. People were involved with planning their care and support, including managing risks. People received their medicines as prescribed. Management and staff understood their responsibility to protect people from risk of abuse and promote their health, safety and wellbeing. The provider followed safe recruitment practices and staff were regularly supervised. There were enough trained, skilled and competent staff on duty to meet people’s care needs. Management were responsive to feedback about some agency staff. More supervision was needed to oversee the agency staff and ensure that they provided care safely and in line with people’s care plans. People lived in a clean and tidy environment. Staff were trained and followed the infection prevention and control practices. Systems to monitor and respond to accidents and incidents enabled management to identify recurring events which was acted on. Management and staff learnt from safeguarding concerns, accidents, incidents and complaints.

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.

People told us the management and staff were responsive to incidents and had learnt from mistakes and taken action to prevent recurrence. Examples of the actions taken included referrals to health professionals for advice and assessment, and additional equipment to promote a person’s safety. People and most relatives felt staff listened and acted on concerns.

Staff were encouraged and supported to raise concerns and share ideas. Staff were trained in maintaining a positive culture in the home. The management team were flexible in their approach to implementing changes. Staff told us when any changes made to how people were supported, the care plans were updated and this was communicated to staff. The care and support provided was monitored to ensure those changes made effectively met the person’s needs.

Accident and incident reporting system was in place, and the progress of all actions was monitored. Records showed incidents were investigated and any lessons learnt were shared with the staff team. Management continued to learn from the internal quality teams, and feedback from health professionals and the local authority responsible for people’s care.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People felt safe with the staff and the care provided. People were protected from the risk of harm and closed cultures. One person said, “I feel I get well-treated here and [Name] is looked after too; they get a cup of tea. I have no complaints.” A relative said, “I am more than happy as they more than meet [Name’s] needs. I never have to worry because of the attention they pay to residents.”

Staff had received safeguarding training and were confident to recognise and report concerns to their line manager and with external agencies, if required. A staff member said, “I would also follow up any concerns I've raised with my senior to make sure action has been taken.” The manager and staff had a good understanding of safeguarding people from the risk of abuse. The manager had experience of investigating concerns from previous roles. They told us when incidents happen they actively involved the staff team in discussion and lessons learned to prevent future risks to people.

We observed people to be relaxed around staff. People appeared comfortable to join in with activity with staff and together they shared chats, laughter and smiles. Where people needed encouragement with mobilising they were supported carefully and with kindness by regular staff. However, we observed an incident where agency staff needed further training and supervision with their manual handling techniques to prevent the risk of bruising people. We observed that when people were sat in armchairs in the communal areas they were still sat on their hoist slings. This is not considered good practice and increases the risk of pressure sore development. We saw no evidence that this had impacted on people, however, we discussed the concerns with the manager agreed to review this.

Staff received safeguarding training and regular supervision. Staff had access to the providers Whistleblowing policy which gave clear guidance on the procedure to follow. Staff also had access to a confidential telephone line and an e-mail address that they could contact anonymously 24 hours / 7 days, to raise concerns. The provider understood the risk to people of a closed culture within the home. Staff were supported in creating a positive culture of openness and transparency via training and a positive culture workshop led by the quality assurance team. The home manager ensured that related staff members were rostered onto different shifts; this reduced the risks to people. Where safeguarding concerns required cooperation with the local authority to investigate, the provider deployed a member of the quality assurance team to ensure effective oversight.

People and relatives told us they were involved in the process to assess risks associated to their needs to ensure those risks were safely managed. A person said, “All the windows had a security attachment to prevent them opening wide and the heating was underfloor.” A relative said, “The SALT (speech and language team) had also visited [Name] and is now on a soft diet and has thickener in their drinks and they still enjoy the meals.” Another relative said, “I have no concerns about [Name’s] safety. [Name] has had a few falls due to their condition and they have a sensor mat to alert staff. Originally [Name] was further away from the nurses station, and they moved them to a room closer to them so they could keep an eye on [Name].”

Nursing and senior care staff spoke with people and their relatives about their care and included their care and preferences into their care plans. One nurse told us they knew people well and continuously built on people’s care plans as their needs changed.

People had the opportunity to talk to nurses and care staff about how they preferred to receive their care.

The provider had systems in place to gather information from people and their relatives about how they preferred to receive their care. There was a person centred approach to assessing needs and planning care, for example, risk assessments had information for staff to support people safely. Audits enabled management to identify risks such as risks to people eating in bed and these were added to action plans to be addressed.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People and relatives told us there enough staff to meet people’s needs. People told us the permanent staff knew people well and felt confident being supported by them. People’s comments included, “There’s enough staff about and they are all very pleasant” and “They know I like to talk and always make time for me. They do come quick as they can; I've never had to wait too long.” A relative said “I go at different times of the day in the week and weekends and the care is always the same. There are adequate staff, they could do with more and there is a group of regular staff I see.” People and relatives expressed concerns about some agency staff in relation to their ability to understand and support them safely. Our observations further confirmed this, and this was raised with the manager.

Staff told us there were enough staff on duty with regular use of agency staff to meet people’s needs. Staff shared concerns about the impact on people and staff with the use of some agency staff. A staff member said, “When agency staff are working, you have to manage them because they don't always want to work or care for people.” This supported our observations, and we shared these concerns with the manager to address. When we returned to complete the assessment, we found action had been taken with more permanent staff on duty and reduced the use of agency staff. The manager told us staff recruitment was ongoing to further reduce the need for agency staff. Staff told us they were supported by the manager who valued their feedback. Staff were committed to supporting people safely; they were trained and understood how to meet people’s needs.

There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Clinical leadership was currently from a deputy manager from another service, the new clinical lead/deputy was currently going through the recruitment process. People received care from staff that knew their needs. More supervision was required to oversee the agency staff.

The provider used safe recruitment systems to employ new staff. Staff received regular supervision and training to carry out their role. The provider had allocated a recruitment team internally to manage the recruitment of care staff. System was in place to ensure there were enough staff to meet people’s needs and this was kept under review.

People lived in a clean and hygienic environment that promoted their safety and wellbeing. People comments included, “It's very clean; they clean our rooms daily and once in a while clean behind all the furniture.” Another said, “His bedroom is always clean, the whole home is very clean.” One person told us staff supported them with washing, dressing and to keep their hands clean which was important to them. Relatives had no concerns about the cleanliness and hygiene in the care home, and how staff supported their family member with personal hygiene needs. A relative said, “The cleanliness is all very good, if you mention an issue it’s dealt with immediately, if there is no housekeeper then care staff will do it.” People had ensuite toilet and wash hand basin, which promoted their dignity and privacy. There were communal bathrooms and a shower room which people could use safely and most had adequate ventilation.

Staff had received the training they required to adhere to good infection control practices. Staff had the resources they needed to maintain a clean environment. A member of staff told us they have everything they needed to do their domestic role effectively. They told us recent improvements to the staff rotas had made it easier for staff to complete domestic duties and caused less disturbance to people living in the home. The staff member told us that the domestic team had high standards.

We observed the home was clean, tidy and well maintained. Personal protective equipment (PPE) stations and hand washing was available throughout the home and staff were using this appropriately. Domestic staff ensured that cleaning products were locked in the trolley if these were left unattended to prevent the risk of people accessing harmful chemicals. Waste disposal was being used effectively with soiled laundry. The kitchen was clean and well organised. Chilled foods were safely covered, labelled and stored. Food temperatures were taken and recorded to prevent the risk of food poisoning.

Cleaning schedules were in place for staff guidance and staff recorded when tasks were completed. Thorough whole home infection control audits were completed twice a year and action taken where needed. For example, the replacement of carpets, furniture and soft furnishings where needed. The manager had good oversight of infection control in the home via recording daily walk rounds and observations which for example included checking a sample of people's rooms, ensuites and communal areas. The manager also checked the kitchen daily to ensure good food hygiene practice was being followed. Areas requiring action were noted and assigned for action. We identified a bathroom had no ventilation and the management notified the internal estates team to address this.

People were supported with their medicines. People told us they received their prescribed medicines. One person said, "I get my medicines on time, and I've had no problems, in fact they do tell me that a new prescription has come in, which is good.”

Staff received the training they required to administer medicines. Staff competencies were checked regularly.

There were systems and processes in place to monitor and manage the medicines.