Glyn House

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 some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. We observed people being safely supported by staff and most relatives told us people were safe living in the home. Where people experienced incidents of distressed behaviour, these incidents were recorded on incident records. However, not all incidents were reviewed by the management team and some incidents recorded people being restricted from making their own choices and decisions. These restrictions had not been identified or acted upon. Where incidents identified self-injurious behaviours, some of these incidents had not been shared with the appropriate professionals, such as the safeguarding team. This placed people at increased risk of harm. This was a breach of regulation as people were not always safeguarded from abuse and improper treatment. Risks to people from health conditions and activities were assessed appropriately and staff told us how they supported people to manage these risks. People were encouraged to experience new activities, and they were supported to follow their interests. There were enough staff on duty to support people and staff were recruited safely. Medicines were stored and administered safely, however medicine records needed further detail to ensure they recorded clear protocols for staff to follow. The home was clean and well maintained.

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 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 were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. People were supported by kind and compassionate staff, who respected them as individuals. Relatives told us the staff knew people well and kept them informed with any changes. Relatives told us people’s independence skills had improved and we observed staff encouraging people to be independent.

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 needs were met through good organisation and delivery. People were supported to attend appointments with health professionals as and when required. However, where health professionals set recommendations for staff to follow, the implementation of these recommendations was not recorded. Relatives told us people received person centred care. We observed staff supporting people individually and respecting people’s choices. Staff used a variety of methods to communicate with people and where people became distressed staff provided reassurance and support. Visiting professionals told us the provider made appropriate referrals as and when required.

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.