Glenmuir House Residential Care Home

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

Improvements had been made to governance systems and processes, however there were still some areas where detail was not evident of what actions had been taken and when, in response to findings. The management team supported staff well and there was effective and frequent communication to ensure information was handed over and discussed to produce the best outcomes for people. Lessons had been learned from events and incidents and practice improved as a result. There was an open and supportive culture between management and the staff team.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff and management told us how they shared information about people’s needs to ensure they received the best quality care possible. Staff said that they were clear about the expectations of them in their roles, and this was discussed during their individual supervision sessions and at staff meetings. One staff told us, “We have good communication – we are a small team and know each other well.” Staff told us that the management approach to risks meant that risks were not overlooked or ignored. They were dealt with willingly as an opportunity to put things right, learn and improve.

The management team had improved their systems for regular auditing of specific areas of the service, such as health and safety and incidents and accidents. However, there were some areas of audits that had not been fully completed, and some lacked dates and signatures and details of actions taken. This is an area that needs further improvement and embedding of systems. Staff were able to tell us about what had been learnt from incidents and how they had used that information to make improvements to the quality of care. The registered manager had a good understanding of the regulatory responsibilities of their role and of the duty of candour. There were policies in place to support staff to respond appropriately should anything go wrong. The management team ensured that all records and documents regarding peoples and staff personal data were safe with in a locked cupboard and those kept on the computer were password protected. This had ensured all personal data was protected Statutory notifications had been submitted when required.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The registered manager is knowledgeable and shares their knowledge and experience with staff. The registered manager said, “We work closely together, we all have strengths and we use those to continuously learn and improve.” Staff told us they respond to feedback and take learning away from incidents, in order to improve their practice.

The management and staff team had continually updated their skills and knowledge by attending training, meetings and forums. They had regularly met with the provider and the other managers of the sister homes. They valued the opportunity to meet other managers to share ideas and discuss concerns. The registered manager was open and transparent when discussing the areas for improvements and used feedback from staff and people to continually improve outcomes for people. Staff were positive about the management team and felt they were supportive and forward thinking. The provider consistently questioned what could be done to further improve the service, and implemented any changes they felt necessary. For example, call bell facilities were not always in reach for people and so they had purchased call bells that people could wear around their wrist as a watch. This had worked very well. The management team checked that the service was being delivered to the standards they required everyday by talking to people, visitors, their relatives and staff, as well as checking records and observing what happened at the service. Any shortfalls were addressed immediately.