Glanmor

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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained to 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.

This service scored 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Leaders demonstrated they recorded incidents and accidents and reviewed these for patterns.

Staff knew how to report concerns and could discuss what actions they took including filling in appropriate paperwork and reporting issues of concern to leaders. Records reviewed demonstrated staff following the providers policy to escalate concerns to leaders for them to address.

People told us they felt they were supported safely and by staff that knew them well and knew how to respond to their immediate needs.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Leaders and staff told us they supported people to book appointments such as doctors and dentists. They also supported people to appointments as needed. People confirmed staff were available to support them. One person told us staff ensured they booked and attended any health appointments they had as they struggled to do this independently.

One person told us they had experienced good support when moving into the service including being able to visit to get to know people. We saw leaders had assessed the person before they moved in and all staff had been able to review their care plan.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

We saw people were being supported safely, by staff who demonstrated they knew them well.

The provider ensured staff were trained to identify safeguarding concerns. Staff we spoke to could identify what safeguarding was and what steps they should take if they had a safeguarding concern.

At the time of inspection 1 person was subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are a legal framework designed to protect vulnerable people who lack capacity to consent to their care arrangements, however, this was not reviewed as part of the inspection.
The provider had a policy relating to managing DoLS safely. Staff had received DoLS training and could describe what they should do and when.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

At the time of inspection, the provider was locking the main kitchen door meaning people could not access the kitchen independently. They could access a kitchenette with a fridge, microwave, toaster and other kitchen equipment. Further there was CCTV in the laundry room,small kitchen and front door. Neither of these practices had been discussed or risk assessed with people. This meant they were being subject to restrictions the provider could not be assured were appropriate.

We raised this with leaders who took immediate action. They unlocked the kitchen during the day and wrote appropriate risk assessments for both locking the kitchen overnight and for using CCTV within the house. People we spoke to told us they knew the CCTV was in place and that they did not feel it was an issue.

Other risks to people were appropriately recorded and risks were addressed with people. For example, people smoking in their bedrooms was risk assessed and there were appropriate mitigating circumstances recorded.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. During the inspection we identified concerns relating to a lack of window restrictors in upstairs bathrooms. We also saw the bathrooms and toilets in the house were not in an acceptable condition. For example, there was rust present on a shower seat, radiators were damaged and also rusting. There was a damaged sink in the laundry and hot pipework that was left exposed. We addressed these concerns with leaders at the time of the inspection. They explained they were renting the house from a housing association who had not maintained it appropriately. Leaders could demonstrate via issues log they had contacted their housing association asking for repairs to be completed. The provider addressed these concerns again with their landlord during the inspection and the landlord immediately took appropriate action.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

There was a stable staff team and recruitment had been completed safely. Staff told us they received effective regular training, either electronic or face to face. Leaders could demonstrate that staff were supervised regularly. The supervision records we reviewed were thorough and detailed, including information about new people moving into the service.

People told us they felt there were enough staff available, and that they knew how to support them safely.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading.

The provider ensured the house was kept clean. However, there was a damaged sink in the laundry and rusty shower seats and radiators. This meant the provider had not fully ensured the premises were properly maintained, which could pose risks of infection and injury to people. We highlighted these concerns with leaders during the inspection and they contacted the landlord asking for them to be addressed.

Although the service had a food hygiene rating of 5, inspected in January 2026, we found opened food items within the fridge were not always appropriately sealed or labelled. This meant staff could not be assured food items in the fridge were safely able to be used. This could lead to people becoming unwell by eating inappropriate foods. Leaders addressed these concerns during the inspection.

Staff were seen wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during the inspection.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People’s medicines were stored safely in a locked cabinet. Staff ensured people could take their medicines where they chose. Staff had received appropriate training and could demonstrate how they completed stock checks daily to ensure they had not missed any medicines. People told us they were happy with the support they received from staff in relation to medicines. Leaders confirmed this by ensuring monthly medication audits were undertaken.