Glyn House

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

This is the first assessment for this service, we assessed all quality statements. At this assessment the rating for this key question is good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. People’s care was regularly reviewed, and people’s health was monitored. Visiting professionals told us the provider worked in partnership and communicated with them effectively. However, people were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not always support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. Care plans identified people’s goals and detailed how staff were to support them to reach their goals. However, on-going monitoring of these goals were not always recoded clearly in daily documents. People were supported to live healthier lives and relatives told us about the positive changes in people’s lives which had greatly impacted on people’s health and wellbeing.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s needs were regularly assessed. One relative told us, “Communication is great. They [the provider] always let me know if anything has changed.”

Staff told us people’s care was reviewed. One staff member said, “We [staff] read care plans over and over. If there are changes in the care plan these are discussed in our monthly meetings and handovers. We [staff] have a ‘read and sign’ document to confirm we have read the changes.”

People’s needs were clearly assessed. Care plans were regularly updated, however, at times care plans contained conflicting or outdated information. The registered manager responded to our feedback by updating the relevant documents.

Relatives told us the provider delivered effective care and support. Two relatives told us about the transformation and progress their family member had made whilst living in the home. Another relative told us they were unclear how a risk to their family member was being managed safely. We reviewed this risk and discovered the person had been referred to a visiting professional who produced a series of recommendations to support the person to manage this risk. However, there were no records to explain whether the recommendations from professionals had been successful or were being followed.

Staff told us about people’s care and how they managed risks safely. However, we raised concerns over the daily checking of people’s equipment and how incidents were being recorded and reviewed.

Systems and processes were in place to deliver evidence-based care. However, some records were not completed consistently and actions taken following concerns raised by staff or recommendations made by professionals were not always clearly documented.

People attended health appointments as and when needed. Relatives told us the provider worked in partnership with other health professionals such as doctors and dentists.

Staff told us they worked in partnership with other professionals. One staff member told us about support being provided by an advocate who visited and how this had assisted people living in the home.

Visiting professionals told us the provider worked in partnership with them. One visiting professional told us, “I have found the provider to be very receptive and communicative.” Another visiting professional told us, “The staff are knowledgeable around the residents needs and interests.” However, the same professional raised concerns over the length of time it had taken on occasions for the provider to respond to their communications.

Records documented the provider worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals. However, further improvements were needed when referring concerns to the local area safeguarding team and following recommendations from health professionals.

People were supported to live healthier lives. Relatives told us how staff supported people with their wellbeing, diet and exercise.

Staff supported people to make healthier choices and decisions. Staff gave us examples of how they encouraged people to live a healthy life. One staff member said, “We try to encourage people to come with us on walks, sometimes they will agree, but sometimes they prefer us to drive. We try but ultimately, it's up to them.”

Care plans recorded different approaches to encourage people to live healthier lives. People’s diet and weight were monitored in accordance with their assessed need.

People’s care was monitored on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. Relatives told us people were being monitored safely. One relative told us about a person’s chest infection and how emergency services were contacted. They said, “The staff monitored [my family member's] infection until it had cleared.”

Staff shared examples of people’s improving health and wellbeing. One staff member told us how they had supported a person to lose weight and how this had been beneficial to the person’s health. Documents recorded people's diets and health were being monitored in accordance with people’s care plans.

People’s health and wellbeing was being monitored. However, where people needed their bowel care monitored the records and documents were not always clear regarding when and how action was to be taken following any concerns and people's goal monitoring was not being consistently updated. The registered manager responded to our feedback by introducing new monitoring and recording systems.

Relatives told us people were encouraged to make their own choices and decisions and these were respected by the staff team.

Staff told us they respected people’s rights to make their own choices. One staff member said, “We all promote choice, we try to encourage healthier decision making but we also understand it's their life, it's up to them, so we respect their decisions.” We discussed incidents involving distressed behaviour with the registered manager. Some of these incidents involved people being restricted from making their own choices and decisions. The registered manager reviewed these incidents and whilst it was clear the staff were attempting to support people in what they considered was in the person’s best interest at the time, the person’s choice was not respected nor their right to make an unwise choice.

Assessments of people’s mental capacity and best interest meetings had taken place to ensure decisions made were appropriate and least restrictive. We reviewed examples relating to the decisions concerning where a person should live and covert medication. The registered manager had made appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications for people who required this level of protection to keep them safe and meet their needs. However, where incidents involved people experiencing distressed behaviour, the response from staff did not always support the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Whilst it was apparent there was no malice intended, people were restricted from making their own choices or unwise decisions without correct authorisation. The registered manager investigated these incidents with the staff team and reviewed the principles of MCA.