Glenwood 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

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

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

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. For example, records reviewed showed staff recorded and reviewed incidents and events, using analysis to identify themes, reduce risks and improve practice across the home. Learning was shared across the team to support a consistent and safer approach to care delivery.

Staff followed professional guidance to support people’s individual needs. Systems were in place to reinforce expectations for staff training and development, including mandatory learning and leadership programmes, with managers responsible for supporting and monitoring staff completion and engagement.

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. For example, detailed, structured handovers supported safe continuity of care by ensuring staff shared accurate, up-to-date information about people’s needs, risks and preferences, helping to maintain safe systems and reduce the risk of harm. Records reviewed showed one person moving to the home from another area was supported through a well-planned transition, including regular pre-placement visits, a full assessment, and multi-disciplinary meetings, including panel review, to ensure the placement was appropriate and the move was smooth and person-centred.

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. For example, safeguarding systems were in place to identify and respond to concerns promptly. Records showed concerns were escalated quickly and shared appropriately with relevant professionals to support timely action. Systems were in place to protect people from financial and environmental risks. This included secure handling of money, accurate recording and regular audits, alongside controlled access to the home to maintain safety and accountability. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of safeguarding processes. Training records showed all staff completed safeguarding training and were able to recognise different types of abuse and take appropriate action when concerns arose.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. For example, records showed staff monitored health and wellbeing, including mood, engagement and activity. Trends over time helped staff identify risks early and take action to keep people safe. Risk assessments were up to date and detailed, setting out risks, early warning signs and actions for staff. Care planning showed a person-centred approach to risk, balancing safety with independence. Staff followed professional guidance to support people’s individual needs, ensuring care remained safe and responsive for those with more complex requirements.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. For example, records showed regular safety checks, including fire safety, equipment and environmental risks. Staff checked water temperatures and equipment, such as hoists and wheelchairs, and kept corridors and emergency exits clear. People had detailed and personalised personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs), which set out their needs, including mobility and communication, giving staff clear guidance in an emergency. Walkaround checks showed the home was well maintained, homely and safe.

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. For example, our observations showed there were sufficient staff available to support people safely and in a timely way. Staff told us they felt very well supported and received regular supervision. Feedback from staff was consistently positive, with staff speaking highly about working at the home and describing a supportive and cohesive team. There was a low staff turnover, which supported continuity of care and strong relationships with people. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of policies and procedures and demonstrated a clear understanding of people’s needs and worked together to provide consistent, person-centred care.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. For example, an up-to-date infection prevention and control (IPC) policy was in place, and staff had completed appropriate training. The home was visibly clean, supported by regular cleaning schedules and easy access to personal protective equipment (PPE).

Records and audits showed infection control processes were followed, with regular environmental and hygiene checks to reduce the spread of infection.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. For example, the medicines room was particularly clean and organised, people received their medicines safely and on time, and staff administering medicines had completed appropriate training and regular competency checks. Detailed PRN protocols were in place, providing staff with clear guidance on when ‘as required’ medicines should be given to ensure they were used safely, consistently and in line with people’s individual needs.