Glyn House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This is the first assessment for this service, we assessed all quality statements. At this assessment the rating for this key question is requires improvement. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. Quality audits were taking place to monitor the care and support provided to people living in the home. However, these had not identified the discrepancies found during this assessment. Incident analysis had not identified areas of restrictive practice and referrals to the safeguarding authority had not been made in a timely manner. This placed people at increased risk of harm. This was a breach of regulation as the provider’s governance systems were not always effective. Staff told us they were supported by the registered manager, who started earlier in the year, and they had faith in the registered manager’s ability to lead. Visiting professionals told us the provider worked in partnership with them and they were kept informed about changes in people’s care and support needs. However, concerns were raised regarding the time taken for the provider to respond to visiting professionals and to follow on recommendations. The registered manager responded to all areas of our feedback during this assessment. New processes and systems were put in place and new quality monitoring records. We will assess the success of these in the next assessment.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us the culture of the organisation focused on the wellbeing and safety of people living in the home. One staff member said, “The staff team are really good, we work well as a team. We all focus on the residents making sure they are safe and happy.” However, following a review of incident records, we discussed elements of a restrictive culture with the registered manager. Incident forms recorded people had been restricted from making their own choices and decisions, for example when choosing what to wear and accessing their touchscreen tablet computer late in the evening. The registered manager agreed staff should have respected the person’s choice at the time and reflected on these incidents with the staff team in order to prevent them from occurring in the future.

Incident records recorded restrictive practices. Whilst some of these incidents occurred early in the year, some prior to the new registered manager starting, these had not been reviewed to identify and remove restrictive practices. The registered manager established new systems for reviewing future incidents.

Staff told us the registered manager was supportive. One staff member said, “The registered manager is approachable. We were nervous before they started working here. The registered manager has fitted in really well. They know when to be firm and they are very knowledgeable.” Another staff member said, “The management team are 100 % supportive, they are always there for you. If I had any concerns, I definitely could go to them, I know they would act.” The registered manager was proactive to all feedback raised during this assessment. We discussed the duty of candour; the registered manager understood their duty to be open and honest at all times. We discussed incident management and analysis, the registered manager agreed further improvements were needed and introduced new systems to ensure incidents were thoroughly reviewed and reported to the relevant professionals.

Statutory notifications were raised with us in accordance with the provider’s duties and responsibilities. However, where incidents involved self-injurious behaviours, these were not shared always with the local authority safeguarding team. The registered manager responded to our feedback and raised the relevant safeguarding referrals and submitted the appropriate statutory notification with us retrospectively.

Staff told us they felt confident to speak up against any poor practice or raise concerns. One staff member said, “I do think I'd be protected if I spoke up. I am confident to speak up about any issues or concerns. I know the registered manager would listen.”

The whistle-blowing policy was in place and staff told us where they could access it.

Staff told us they felt valued by the provider. One staff member said, “The company values all the people and staff. It's safe, it's inclusive, it's a very good place to work. We all value good teamwork.”

The provider valued the workforce. Staff received equality and diversity training. The provider utilised their systems to provide staff with tools to support their wellbeing and mental health. The registered manager shared staff questionnaires which were used to gather staff’s feedback into the service.

Staff told us they were regularly checked for their competencies, and they said they believed in the registered manager’s ability to lead. The registered manager had started in their role earlier this year. The registered manager was open and receptive to our feedback and put new systems and processes in place to all areas of concern identified. We will assess the success of these new systems in our next assessment.

Governance systems were either not in place or robust enough to ensure incidents were being managed safely and shared with other professionals, such as the safeguarding team. Incident analysis did not always ensure people remained free from restrictive practice. Quality monitoring processes failed to ensure equipment was being tested in accordance with people’s care plans. Health monitoring systems did not clearly monitor people’s bowel care in accordance with care plans. Following health professional recommendations, systems in place did not record actions taken by the provider to meet these recommendations. This was a breach of regulation.

Relatives told us the provider worked in partnership with other professionals such as chiropodists, occupational therapists and advocacy services.

Staff told us they worked alongside other health and social care professionals. One staff member told us, “We work with occupational therapists and speech and language therapists.” We spoke with the registered manager over the lack of professional involvement surrounding self-injurious behaviours, in particular the safeguarding team. The registered manager responded to our feedback by making the relevant referrals.

Visiting professionals told us they worked in partnership with the provider and staff team. One visiting professional told us, “The staff team will refer on behalf of those they are supporting and seek advice.” Although, another visiting professional told us, “The provider will contact the team if there are concerns and will make a referral if this is something our team can support with. However, there have been times where I have asked to arrange visits. I had to chase this up and they [the provider] took an extended time to respond.”

Records documented the provider worked alongside relevant professionals such as health professionals. Although further actions were needed when alerting safeguarding professionals to incidents involving distressed behaviours. Where health professionals made recommendations, these were not always clearly followed up and records did not document whether the recommendations had been successful. The registered manager introduced new systems for monitoring incidents and visiting professional's recommendations.

Staff told us they felt involved in the service and could make suggestions. One staff member said, “When we talk in staff meetings all our opinions are listened to and taken forwards.” The registered manager shared their plans for improving the service provided to people. They told us about planned renovations to the home and they shared plans to develop a sensory garden.

The registered manager was receptive to all our feedback. New systems and processes were developed to carry out audits and to follow up incidents of distressed behaviour. We will review the success of these systems during the next assessment.