Glenfield

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 required improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

Since we last inspected the provider had improved the safety of the service. Shortfalls in medicines management had been addressed. The premises had been upgraded and made safer. Following staff training, people’s records were of a better quality .

People were safe at the service and had trusting relationships with staff. Relatives were confident staff kept their family members safe. Staff were trained in safeguarding and followed the provider’s safeguarding policies and procedures to ensure people were protected from abuse and neglect.

Staff used positive behaviour support to reduce risks to people who might become distressed. They followed people’s risk assessments to ensure they received safe and effective support. The premises were clean and tidy, and the provider had upgraded and improved them.

The service was well-staffed. Staff had the training they needed to meet people’s individual support needs. The provider had improved the service’s recruitment policy to ensure the staff employed were suitable to work with people who use care services.

Medicines were well-managed and safely stored and administered. Staff involved people and relatives, where appropriate, in medicines reviews.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people, relatives, and partners to understand what being safe meant to people and the best way to achieve that. Staff protected people’s right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared safeguarding concerns quickly and appropriately.

People trusted staff and were comfortable in their presence. They approached staff for comfort and support when they needed it. Relatives said their family members were safe at the service. A relative told us, “Yes [person] is safe; staff take precautions if things go awry.”

Staff understood how to safeguard people and what to do if they had concerns about a person’s well-being. A staff member said, “Glenfield is a safe and supportive environment for the people we care for. We all work hard every day to ensure that they receive the best possible care and live happy and fulfilling lives.”

There were effective systems in place to ensure people were protected from abuse and neglect. The service had an open culture. Relatives and partners were involved in safeguarding investigations. Lessons were learnt and changes made to improve people’s safety at the service. Managers and staff had a clear understanding of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and only used them when it is in people’s best interests.

Since we last inspected managers had introduced a new system to check people’s money was being safely managed. This included senior staff carrying out daily and monthly audits to ensure balances were correct.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided safe care and support that enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. They used positive behaviour support to minimise risks and support people to achieve their desired outcomes.

Relatives said staff were skilful and knowledgeable in supporting people when they showed distressed behaviours . This was an improvement on our last inspection when some relatives lacked confidence in staff members’ ability to support people at these times.

People’s risk assessments were person-centred, proportionate, and regularly reviewed. Staff said they were informative, and easy to read and understand. A staff member said, “We get the right information so we can support people in the right way.” Where possible, people were involved in their risk assessments, but if not, best interests' decisions were made on their behalf.

Some people using the service were at risk due to conditions such as allergies, diabetes, and epilepsy. They had detailed support plans and risk assessments for these conditions to ensure staff had the information they needed to keep people safe. These incorporated advice and guidance from NHS healthcare professionals.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Relatives had no concerns about the safety of the premises. A relative said, “It is clean and well decorated; they [the staff team] do make an effort.”

All areas inspected were clean and tidy. The service’s last local authority infection prevention and control inspection, in 2024, rated the cleanliness of the premises at 98% and did not request any action from the provider to improve on this.

The provider ensured staff at the service and external contractors carried out regular checks and inspections to ensure utilities such as electricity, water, and gas were safe to use. People had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) telling staff how to safely evacuate them if they needed to leave the premises in the event of an emergency.

The provider had further improved the premises. There was a new sensory room, and we saw a person enjoying spending time there. The provider had fitted new gates at the front of the premises to make it safer for a person to ride their trike in the front carpark. The provider had also fitted window restrictors on the small windows in people’s bedrooms, and risk assessed the electric heaters used on occasions in communal areas.

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.

Relatives were satisfied with staffing numbers and how staff supported their family members. A relative said, “Staff are well-trained and well-briefed. There’s always a member of staff to keep an eye on [person].”

Staff supported people in the way people wanted. For example, a staff member did artwork with a person on the floor because the person preferred this to using the service’s activity area. Another person wanted to be active, and staff accompanied them as they explored the premises and gardens. Staff talked with people about the things that interested them, for example discussing plans for the forthcoming holiday season.

The service had a safe recruitment policy to help ensure the staff employed were suitable to work with people using care services. Improvements had been made to this to ensure references always came from credible sources, and ID checks were always signed and dated to certify original documents had been seen. Where possible, people using the service were involved in choosing new staff.

Staff training included the government-recommended Oliver McGowan Training on Learning Disability and Autism. A staff member said, “I’ve had lots of training and support in dealing with behaviours of concern.”

The service had a new protocol for team meetings implemented in December 2024 which stated they should be held monthly (this hadn’t always happened in 2024).

An issue where on person’s 1-2-1 staffing hours were not accurately recorded had been addressed.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities, and preferences. Staff involved people, and relatives where applicable, in planning, including when changes happened.

At our last inspection we found several dates where medicines storage areas exceeded the temperature required to maintain their integrity. At this inspection, the provider had fitted cooling equipment and records showed medicines had been stored safely in line with National Institute for Care and Excellence (NICE) guidance.

At our last inspection staff lacked the necessary training and authorisation to administer some types of people’s medicines. The provider addressed this, and staff now had the proper training, and, where necessary, authorisation from NHS staff, to administer medicines such as insulin, steroid creams, and eye drops. People had PRN (as required) medicines protocols in place where necessary to support staff to know when administration was required.

At our last inspection we asked the provider to ensure medicines were audited. In response the provider set up an audit system for medicines which included weekly, monthly, and bi-annual audits. These had been completed and were up to date.

Relatives had no concerns about how staff managed people’s medicines. They said staff explained what each medicine was for, ensured emergency medicines (e.g. for allergies) were always at hand, and involved people and relatives in medicines reviews.