Glenfield

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 as requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Relatives and staff said the service was running more effectively since our last inspection. They told us communication and teamwork had improved. Record-keeping was better organised and more professional.

Glenfield had an open and honest culture. Leaders knew people using the service personally and visited them regularly. Relatives were satisfied with how the service was run. Outcomes for people were positive, and they received consistent good quality care and support.

Staff said leaders and managers were approachable and listened to them if they had any suggestions or concerns. The provider promoted staff welfare and had systems in place to support staff well-being. The provider used audits to monitor all aspects of the service and managers, and staff followed action plans if improvements were necessary.

Leaders and managers continually improved the service and ensured all staff learnt from incidents and accidents. Staff worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals, so people received holistic care and treatment.

This service scored 64 (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 Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience, and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness, and honesty.

People using the service had positive relationships with leaders, including those at provider level, who visited the service and got to know them personally. A relative said they got on well with leaders because ‘they are on the same wavelength’. Managers at Glenfield said senior leaders were genuine people who shared their values, were up to date with good practice, and cared about people, relatives, and staff.

Staff told us managers listened to them and promoted an open and inclusive culture at the service. A staff member said, “Everyone at Glenfield, including the manager, is like an open book, very approachable and accessible. There’s always room to listen to staff about their own ideas or concerns.” Another staff member commented, “Every concern raised in Glenfield has always been addressed and resolved. It’s a truly special place, and I’m grateful to be a part of it.”

In 2024 the provider was named as a top employer in a national newspaper’s ‘best companies’ award. The award was given to companies whose staff felt happy and valued. Glenfield staff also won an in-house national ‘best team’ award for their improvements to the service. The provider organised manager forums and conferences to ensure the organisational vision was understood, shared, and promoted.

The service sent out annual quality surveys to people, relatives, staff, and stakeholders. In 2024 not all of these had received a response, but the operations manager said they would continue to be sent out to give recipients the opportunity to comment on the service if they wished to.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment, and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance, and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

At the time of our inspection visit the registered manager was working at another of the provider’s services. An acting manager was in post and running the service with the support of the operations manager. The provider had enrolled them on a management course, and they were in the process of applying to CQC to become Glenfield’s new registered manager.

At our last inspection not all staff were following positive behaviour support strategies when people were showing distressed behaviours. The provider had addressed this through training and improved support plans, and staff were now using person-centred interventions that supported people’s underlying needs. Relatives commented positively on the way staff were now working with their family members.

As required by their registration, the provider had submitted the necessary notifications to CQC following significant events at the service, for example safeguarding and serious injuries.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided and identify improvements. These included a series of audits carried out by the provider’s representatives, and managers and staff at the service. Records showed that when shortfalls were identified managers and staff addressed these.

The service improved outcomes for people and tackled known inequalities. People had progressed and achieved some of their individual goals, for example, visiting the library, going shopping, a beach holiday, a meal out with their family.

Staff were well-supported by managers and the provider. They had regular supervisions and appraisals, and opportunities to share their views on the service.

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.

Managers and staff worked in partnership with a range of health and social care professionals and incorporated their advice and guidance into the care and support they provided. For example, a local GP regularly reviewed people’s health and signed their health action plans. A psychiatrist visited people every six months and staff could contact them at any time for advice. Depending on their needs, people either went to a local dentist or had a dentist come to them. These interactions helped people maintain their well-being and be a part of their community.

People had annual person-centred reviews involving those who were part of their care and support community. Attendees included the person themselves, relatives, staff, and the service’s positive behaviour support team. Reviews focused on the person’s strengths and achievements, what was important to the person, what has/hasn’t been working well, and how best to move forward so the person could achieve their goals.

The service worked effectively with the local authority. Following a 2024 contract monitoring visit from the local authority, improvements were made to the service. This included updating their complaints procedure, moving and handling policy, and Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards policy.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome, and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

At our last inspection staff recording in people’s behaviour charts was inconsistent and staff did not always use appropriate terminology. To address this staff had further training to improve the quality of their record-keeping. Regular audits by team leaders and managers helped to ensure good-quality records were kept.

The provider was updating the service’s business continuity plan following suggestions for improvement made by the local authority and CQC.

Relatives said communications had improved at the service. A relative told us, “Communications weren’t good before but they’re ironing it out now. They always phone me if there’s anything at all. It’s got a lot better. It’s nice to have people you feel comfortable with.” Another relative said new management arrangements had had a positive impact on the service.

Staff said the service had improved since our last inspection. A staff member told us, “Glenfield has come together to build a strong team whose wish and desire is to see the people we support live their best life.”

The provider had systems to continually improve the service. The provider’s own positive behaviour support, placement stability, and rapid recovery teams were available to work with people and staff on request. Learning from incidents/events was shared via the provider’s internal communication newsletter.

The service promoted equality and inclusion for its workforce. The recruitment process was anti-discriminatory, staff completed diversity questionnaires, and the provider’s policies and training covering equality and diversity.