Glenister Gardens

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

People were supported to maintain their wellbeing and health. Needs were assessed and planned for, and people were supported to have choice in their day to day activities. These included keep fit activities such as the gym and swimming. People had consented to their care and where they did not have the capacity to consent to their care, appropriate assessments and best interest decisions were made on their behalf. We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question, as we did not identify concerns in the areas we judged as being met at our last inspection.

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.

Relatives told us they were invited to be involved in assessments and planning people’s care. Comments included, “I’ve seen [person’s] care plan and there was a recent review meeting” and “They did contact us about a review meeting for it be we leave it up to them. We trust them.”

Staff told us they were able to meet people’s needs. Staff knew people well and gave us examples of how they assessed people’s needs and supported them in a way to promote independence and that kept people safe. For example, when providing personal care, staff supported people to do as much on their own but provided more support in areas people needed help with.

People's needs were assessed prior to moving to the service to help ensure the provider could meet the person’s needs. Ongoing reviews of risk assessments and care plans were undertaken so staff had relevant information on how to meet people’s needs.

Overall relatives indicated people’s nutritional and hydration needs were met. One relative was concerned one person had too much processed food but another relative stated, “[Person] chooses what they like to eat and they like to help prepare. [They are] eating well. [Person] can be prone to being overweight but staff limit them and make sure their choices are good ones.”

The managers told us they worked well with other health and social care professions to maintain people’s health.

The provider had systems in place to support current good practice. Care plans were detailed and included information about people’s health needs, likes and dislikes and how people would like to receive their care. People and their relatives were invited to care reviews. Records we reviewed indicated people’s nutrition and hydration needs were met in line with current guidance

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People had support to access healthcare services as required.

Care plans recorded personalised information about people’s healthcare needs and staff made referrals to professionals according to people’s needs.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People's support plans contained information about consent to the care they received.

Managers and staff confirmed they had undertaken Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training and were aware of what decisions people could make for themselves.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. Care plans indicated the service was working within the principles of the MCA. People’s mental capacity had been assessed and best interests decisions had been made appropriately and as required. For example, a best interest decision was in place for one person who received their medicines covertly. Where necessary, applications for Court of Protection authorisations had been made so people’s freedom was not unlawfully restricted.