The Glades

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

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The registered manager demonstrated the necessary skills and experience to lead the service effectively, with a focus on priorities and a transparent, open approach throughout the assessment. Minor areas of improvement identified during this assessment were responded to quickly and responsively.

Staff had a good understanding of their roles and shared the registered manager’s commitment to providing person-centred care and treating and valuing people as individuals. Staff told us they contributed to a kind and supportive culture at the service. A range of policies were in place to guide staff.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

Before this assessment several concerns were raised about the way the home was managed and concerns of a safeguarding nature. We looked at all of these concerns and found the registered manager had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. Staff and the relative we spoke with were very positive about the registered manager and the way the home was run. They described the registered manager as approachable and supportive. One relative said, “The leadership is brilliant.”

The management team worked well together and supported each other to deliver safe, quality care. Several staff told us they had worked there for several years and wouldn’t work anywhere else as they felt valued. A staff member told us, “The registered manager is the best manager I have ever had and is very supportive. Everyone gets on, staff morale is good, people seem happy, and I can always go to management if I need to.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider had a speaking up and whistle blowing policy in place. Staff had received supervisions and told us they felt supported by management and felt comfortable with raising any concerns. Comments included, “I feel supported by the registered manager and area manager who is here regularly. We have supervisions and have opportunity for continuous professional development. Supervisions are 2-way and staff can feedback concerns or ideas. We have meetings about incidents, and we are all able to have our say and there is opportunity to reflect.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The service supported a diverse workforce, and there was no evidence that staff felt disadvantaged or unsupported.

During our onsite inspection, we observe a positive culture and feedback from staff was positive about being treated fairly at work. 

The provider did not always have effective systems of governance and oversight to identify and address risks, monitor performance and drive continuous improvement. As a result, some issues identified during the assessment, including environmental risks, the management of topical medicines and arrangements for administering medicines in the community, had not been consistently identified through existing quality assurance processes.

A new provider had assumed responsibility for the service in December 2025 and was introducing revised governance and quality assurance systems to strengthen provider oversight. These arrangements were being implemented in a planned and phased way to support sustainable improvement without overwhelming the service. The provider maintained a regular presence within the home and met frequently with the registered manager. However, records did not consistently demonstrate how provider oversight identified emerging risks, monitored the effectiveness of actions taken or evaluated outcomes.

The provider demonstrated a positive and responsive approach to feedback. During the assessment, concerns were acknowledged openly and immediate action was taken to strengthen governance processes, including environmental monitoring, medicines oversight and quality assurance checks. The provider had also recognised the need to train community support staff to administer medicines and had begun implementing improvements to reduce unnecessary restrictions on people's access to community activities, in line with the principles of ‘Right support, right care and right culture’. These strengthened arrangements required time to become fully embedded and consistently effective in practice.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour and promoted an open and transparent culture. Required notifications and safeguarding information were submitted to CQC in accordance with legal requirements.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. Healthcare partners did not raise any concerns about how the service worked in effective partnership with them.

There were strong links with commissioners and the local authority, and the registered manager used these relationships to share learning and drive improvements. The service also supported access to advocacy services where needed, ensuring people’s voices were heard.

People were supported to remain active members of their community through a range of regular outings, events and meaningful activities. Relatives were welcomed and encouraged to be involved in daily life, helping to maintain strong relationships and continuity of care.

The provider promoted a culture of continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the service. Staff received regular training, and learning and good practice were shared through team meetings and day-to-day discussions.

The provider had increased its focus on supporting people to lead active and meaningful lives. Opportunities for people to participate in community activities and pursue their individual interests had been expanded, and we saw a varied programme of activities available within the service. This demonstrated a commitment to improving people's quality of life and promoting the principles of ‘Right support, right care and right culture’.

The provider was investing in an electronic care records system to improve the quality of information available to staff and support more effective information sharing with health and social care professionals.