Glenvale Park Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People’s individual needs, preferences and choices were known to staff and reflected in their care plan. Staff knew people well and understood the concept of person-centred care. Information was made available in a way people could understand, so they could be fully involved in making decisions and choices about how their care. People were confident they would be referred to other healthcare professionals if a need was identified. People knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support. People were supported at the end of their life and care plans reflected their decisions and wishes. Staff had received training in end of life care.

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 were involved in decisions about their care and care planning where they could. People’s representative took part in the assessment where the person did not have the capacity to make decisions about their care. People’s care needs, risks and preferences were understood by staff and supported. People’s care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure their care was delivered as they wished.

Staff demonstrated their understanding of delivering person centred care and respected people’s choices. Where people’s needs changed this was shared with staff and care plans were updated.

Where people’s faith and sense of security was important to them, staff ensured the person had those personal items with them at all times. We saw staff ensured a person had their personal prayer beads with them to enable them to practise their faith.

People received care and support from staff who understood their diverse needs and reflected how their assessed needs were met. People’s health care needs were also met by external professionals including specialist nurses, GP, chiropodist and opticians.

Staff understood the diverse health and care needs of people. Staff worked in partnership with other health organisations involved in people's care to ensure care and support was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service worked well in partnership with other health and social care organisations. Partners told us how proactive staff were in recognising any deterioration in people and sharing information about people's care needs across health and social care services to ensure continuity of care.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure information was accurately recorded and shared with staff. An electronic care planning system was in place which alerted staff to changes in people's care needs and enabled the provider to have up to date access to daily records which were audited and to give themselves assurances that people were receiving continuity of care.

People’s individual needs in relation to communication was identified and recorded. People and their relatives were provided with information made available in a way they could understand, this included the complaints procedure. Advocacy information was not readily visible or available to everyone. This was raised with management to address. People’s information was kept up to date and stored securely.

People’s individual communication needs were assessed, and their preferences and support needs detailed in their care plan. Staff gave us examples of how they tailored communication to meet peoples unique and diverse needs.

The provider was able to source information in a variety of different formats and languages where required. This ensured people got all the information they needed in an accessible way for them to make decisions about their care and support.

People were able to give feedback about the care they received. A ‘you said, we did', format was used which provided feedback to people about action that had been taken from the feedback. People were able to share their views and give feedback on a daily basis about the food and we saw the chef's made comments in response to the feedback.

Staff were responsive to people's concerns. Staff were aware of the complaints procedures in place and felt confident the management team would address any concerns people or their relatives had.

The provider had systems in place to ensure concerns and complaints were responded to in a timely manner. We saw that complaints had been investigated and lessons learnt had been incorporated into the process.

People were in control of their care and support. People were able to access the provider's language support services to ensure there were no barriers in communicating their needs.

Staff and leaders were aware and alert to discrimination and recognising inequalities that could disadvantage people from accessing care and support. The provider had multiple avenues in place for people to give their feedback about care, support and accessibility.

We did not receive any specific feedback from partners. We saw some positive examples where the provider had worked in partnership with external agencies, partners and health professionals.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to ensure everyone was treated with dignity and had equal access to opportunities and resources. This was further reinforced by having a 'resident representative' involved in policy decisions.

People’s care and support provided promoted equality and protected their rights. People told us staff were responsive to their needs and new risk or health concerns. People benefitted by the staff approach in reducing the risk of inequalities. People’s relatives told us were happy with their family member’s quality of life and a culture of person-centred care where staff treated people as individuals.

Staff were familiar with people's health needs, as detailed in care records. Staff had received training in various healthcare conditions to help them understand issues people may face. Care plans stated what people's needs were and had clear guidance for staff to help people maintain their health.

The provider had policies and procedures in place which gave staff information about their rights to reasonable adjustments in line with the Equality Act. The provider had information available to ensure people with protected characteristics were recognised and supported appropriately.

People were given the opportunity and support to talk about their end of life choices if they wished to do so. There was no one receiving end of life care during our assessment visit.

Staff had received end of life care training. Staff were able to tell us about a person's wishes who had a detailed end of life care plan; this also covered their cultural wishes. Senior staff informed us that planning for the future was discussed during the assessment process and in more detail once people were settled into the home.

The provider had a designated care plan to record people’s wishes regarding their end of life care. Where appropriate people had a ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation order’ [DNACPR] in place. Professionals worked together to support people to have as much choice and control as possible with their future wishes. For example, a health professional was working alongside the staff team to develop Recommended Summary Plans for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) with people.