The Glades

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 an engaging, proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty and working with people to identify where areas could improve. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were continuously learnt to identify and embed good practice

Staff and leaders demonstrated a positive learning culture, with incident and accident records consistently maintained and used to inform practice. There was clear evidence that learning from events was shared across the team, with staff able to describe how this occurred in practice.

The provider worked well with people and healthcare partners to develop and maintain safe care systems where safety was actively monitored and managed. They ensured continuity of care, including during transitions between services.

Managers and staff worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to ensure people received coordinated and appropriate care and support. This included the timely sharing of relevant information when people transitioned back to their own homes or moved to other care settings.

The provider worked closely with people and healthcare partners to understand what safety meant to them and how best to achieve it. Staff focused on improving people's lives while promoting their right to live free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

Where people needed to be deprived of their liberty to keep them safe, the provider ensured a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) was applied for through the relevant local authority. Any conditions related to DoLS authorisations were being met. The documentation supported that each DoLS application was decision specific for that person. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making 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. When they lack mental capacity to make decisions; any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Prior to the assessment, several safeguarding concerns had been received. The provider responded promptly to these concerns and worked openly and effectively with the local authority and other partner agencies to ensure appropriate action was taken. The provider demonstrated a transparent approach to safeguarding by sharing information appropriately, participating in safeguarding processes and using learning from incidents to strengthen practice and reduce the risk of recurrence.

Concerns were escalated promptly and in line with established procedures. Staff had completed safeguarding training and demonstrated a clear understanding of their responsibilities. Systems were in place to ensure concerns were recognised, reported and acted upon without unnecessary delay. We did not identify any safeguarding concerns during the assessment.

The provider worked with people to take a holistic approach to understanding and managing risks. Staff delivered care that was safe and supportive while enabling individuals to do the things that mattered to them.

People were supported to make informed choices and maintain their independence, while remaining safe. Risk assessments were individualised and reflected people’s preferences. Staff were confident in supporting people with complex healthcare needs. They demonstrated an appropriate balance between managing risk, promoting autonomy, and involving people in decisions about their care.

The provider did not always identify and manage potential risks within the care environment or ensure equipment, facilities and technology consistently supported the delivery of safe care.

During the assessment, we identified environmental safety concerns relating to the storage of hazardous substances and food which had not been labelled after opening. We raised these concerns with the management team, who took immediate action to address them. Other routine environmental checks, including fire safety and water safety, had been completed as expected.

Following our feedback, the provider immediately strengthened environmental safety checks to improve oversight and support the timely identification of potential risks.

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 robust system in place to support safe recruitment practices. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. Staff received appropriate training, support, and supervision to carry out their roles effectively. Staff spoke positively about the quality of training and support provided, with 1 member of staff stating, “We have lots of training which we do online and face to face.”

The provider did not consistently assess and manage risks relating to infection prevention and control. Some areas of the environment required redecoration and refurbishment, and improvement work was underway at the time of the assessment. The service was generally clean; however, we identified some equipment which required deep cleaning and bed bumpers which required replacement. The provider took prompt action to address these issues following our feedback.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines were managed safely. Improvements were needed to ensure medicines were consistently managed safely. Medicines were stored securely, and medicines management processes were person-centred. Records were accurate and complete, with clear protocols for medicines prescribed to be taken when required (PRN) and appropriate guidance for variable dose medicines.

However, arrangements for managing topical medicines were not sufficiently robust. We found topical creams with worn labels, meaning the prescriber's instructions could not always be clearly read, and some creams were not stored securely.

Registered nurses had received training and competency assessments to administer medicines but did not routinely support people when accessing the community. Staff providing community support had not been trained or competency assessed to administer medicines. As a result, people could not always receive their medicines while away from the service, unnecessarily restricting opportunities to access community activities and increasing the risk of delayed access to time-critical medicines. The provider took prompt action to ensure all staff were able to administer medicines at any time.