Glenvale Park 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’s care plans provided staff with up to date guidance to support people safely and in line with their wishes. Further action, as described in the section, ‘Involving people to manage risks’, was needed to ensure risks to people were effectively managed. 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 and support them with their medicines. Staff understood how and who to report concerns to internally and externally of the service. Safeguarding concerns were responded to appropriately to avoid reoccurrence. Staff and management learned from safeguarding concerns, 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 and relatives were confident the management were responsive to incident and learnt from mistake or concerns.

Staff were encouraged and supported to raise concerns, they feel confident that they will be treated with compassion and understanding, and won’t be blamed, or treated negatively if they do so. Systems were in place to ensure lessons were learnt from incidents, complaints and concerns, resulting in changes that improve care for others.

There was a regular plan of training to ensure staff kept their knowledge up to date. Staff, people and relatives engagement and feedback was paramount and welcomed. Audits and reviews were in place with clear action plans to take to ensure areas of improvement were in line with the standards required. Reflective practice was used well to support a learning culture which focused on learning from incidents/events and a change in practice if required.

Care and support was planned and organised with the person, and their relatives, where appropriate, to ensure there was continuity of care. People and relatives spoke positively about timely referrals to health professionals and services as needed. This included support to access routine health professional visits and health appointments such as opticians and dental care. A person said, “They are very good like that, [Opticians] come in, they have a hand massager come in, chiropodist, and a hairdresser.”

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s health and knew when a referral to other health professionals was required. Staff were kept up to date with peoples changing health needs through updated care plans and daily meetings which ensured continuity of care.

The provider understood the benefits of working closely with other health professionals to ensure people receive the right health care support when they needed it. A visiting health professional told us staff were proactive with following health professional advice. For example, advice from the speech and language therapy team in relation to the modified diets people required if they were at risk of choking. To ensure continuity of care, an NHS care coordinator worked alongside other health professionals to ensure people received a seamless transition between health and social care services.

Processes were in place to ensure people received continuity of care when accessing health care services or transitioning between services. Leaders and staff worked proactively with other health care professionals to ensure best outcomes for people. Care records provided details on people’s health appointments and outcomes. There was an audit trail in place to evidence how this information had been shared with the staff team to ensure continuity of care.

People told us they felt safe. People were confident to speak with their family or speak with the management if they had any concerns about their safety. A relative said, “Staff are always very friendly and take good care looking after my relative.”

All staff told us they had received safeguarding training and knew how to report their concerns to the management team. Staff were confident that their concerns would be listened to and acted on, but also felt confident to report to external professionals by whistleblowing procedures if needed.

We carried out a short observational framework inspection (SOFI) to help us understand the experiences of people using the service who may not be able to verbally share their feedback. The SOFI showed us staff were monitoring people's safety when supervising communal spaces and were observed to engage with people to support their well-being. We observed people speaking with staff at ease.

There were effective systems, processes and policies to ensure people were safe from the risk of harm and abuse. The registered manager worked proactively with local partners when there were safeguarding concerns. Safeguarding information and policies to direct staff were in place but should be updated in relation to the safeguarding lead personnel.

People told us risks associated to their needs were safely managed. People told us equipment was used to promote their safety. For instance, floor sensor mats alerted staff when a person was moving around. People told us they could use the call bell if they needed staff to support them. People were supported safely. We observed a staff member supporting a person being transferred onto an armchair using a hoist safely; they communicated with the person throughout; gave assurance, was gentle and checked they were seated comfortably. Relatives told us the care home provided a safe environment for people living with dementia.

Staff told us they were kept up to date about people’s current needs and associated risks through daily handovers. Staff confirmed they had access to people’s care plans and risk assessments and found them easy to navigate and understand. Managers told us all senior staff on duty attended a daily risk meeting and this format was used to escalate new and emerging risks and changes to people’s health or well-being.

We observed people being supported in line with their risk assessments. For example, people were supported safely with their mobility needs and were prompted to use their mobility equipment when required. Sensor mats and call bells were in place and observed to be working effectively; this helped to keep people safe.

People’s care plans contained risk assessments which provided staff guidance on how to reduce known risks. However, a known risk to one person required further intervention to ensure the person’s safety. We observed staff and the management team not responding in a timely manner towards a potential risk involving a person’s mobility equipment. Both of these concerns were addressed during the on-site assessment. The provider had processes in place to monitor accidents and incidents and identify any themes and trends.

People lived in a clean and well maintained environment and they had access to the equipment they needed that promoted their safety. A person said, “Good range of facilities - cafeterias, library, quiet room, hairdresser.” A relative told us, “Yes, moving around the home and room were all clean. Unsure about signage, but knew [Name] way around.” People were confident action was taken to rectify any issues with the premises and equipment used in the delivery of care.

Staff followed the processes in place to maintain a safe environment. The provider completed routine health and safety checks. Actions to maintain safety were taken, for example, the registered manager explained they were working to address maintenance issues with a lift in the building. All staff were aware of the provider’s policy and procedures relating to the reporting of environmental concerns. Staff felt they had enough equipment to carry out their roles safely. Staff understood how they could promote safer environments for people, for example removing trip hazards.

We observed windows all had restrictors in place. Moving and handling equipment had been serviced, kept clean and stored safely. Fire exits and escape routes were kept clear from clutter. The garden was safe and secure, and we observed people accessing this freely.

The provider had systems and processes in place to ensure regular checks were made on the safety of the premises and equipment used. This included fire safety checks and checks on hoists and slings used. Plans were in place to help maintain a safe service should there be an emergency event, such as, the loss of power or severe weather. These checks and processes helped to ensure the safety of the environment was maintained.

People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs and promote their safety. When there had been unplanned staff absences the shifts were covered and people’s needs were met without delay. People were aware there was ongoing recruitment of staff and regular agency staff provided cover when required. People told us staff were trained. A person added “Staff seem to know what you want, and if you are concerned you can talk to them.” Relatives were aware there was ongoing recruitment of staff and regular agency were used as required. A relative said, "There's a good staffing ratio.”

The provider used a dependency tool to determine the number of staff and skill mix required to provide safe care. There was mixed feedback from staff about whether there was always enough staff to meet people’s holistic needs. However, staff were confident people had all their daily care needs met reliably. Staff told us they had completed an induction when they commenced employment.

There was enough skilled staff to safely meet the needs of people. Throughout the on-site visit we observed staff had the time to speak with people on a 1:1 basis. Staff took the time to listen to people and responded positively to their requests. We observed staff taking time to speak with people's relatives. Where 2 staff were required to assist people with mobilising, we saw this happened and at the person's own pace.

The registered manager ensured there were enough skilled and experienced staff to support people effectively with their care and support needs. Staff received support in their role and worked effectively to ensure good outcomes for people. Staff had been recruited safely. Records were maintained to show that checks had been made on employment history, references and the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). DBS checks provide information about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. This information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

People lived in a clean and hygienic environment that promoted their safety and wellbeing. Feedback from people included, “[Name] room was kept nice and clean. [Staff] come in and keep it clean” and “ Housekeeping and laundry is managed pretty well in my opinion. When asked to do deep cleaning in a room, they actually do it. Most of the time they don't even need asking, they do it themselves which is a really good initiative.”

Staff told us they had training in infection prevention and control which was updated regularly. They had access to sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment and knew when this should be used.

Safe infection control procedures were followed. The home was clean and we observed staff used personal protective equipment in line with best practice guidance. People were able to receive visitors without restrictions.

The provider had an infection control policy in place and staff had access to this. Regular infection control audits were undertaken, and actions addressed if any shortfalls were found during audits. The provider had an up-to-date business continuity plan in place.

People told us they received their medicines at the right time and had no concerns. A person said, “I don’t need to be told; I know what my [medicines] are for.” No concerns were received from people and relatives we spoke with in relation to support with medicines.

Staff confirmed they had received training in medicines management and their competency had been checked by the registered manager. Staff were confident in what actions to take in the event of a medicine error. Staff were able to describe safe systems for medicine management.

Assessments identified the level of support people needed to safely manage their medicines, including where medicines were time sensitive. Systems and processes were in place to ensure staff were trained and their competency assessed to administer medicines. There was a process in place to audit medicines records, we saw these were completely monthly and actions taken to address any issues.