Glynn Court Residential Home

Updated 3 March 2026

We conducted our inspection from 20 to 30 January 2026. We inspected the service due to concerns we received about the support people received when anxious or distressed. We assessed all 33 quality statements. The service is a care home without nursing, supporting up to 31 younger adults and older people, some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of the inspection, 23 people were living at the service. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This means help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

The provider was in breach of 5 regulations in relation to: safe care and treatment; staffing; consent; person-centred care; and good governance. You can find more details of our concerns in the quality statement findings.

The provider did not ensure safe care and treatment for people. Care records demonstrated risks were not managed safely. Medicines were not managed safely. The service did not always manage the risk of infection safely. We found concerns in relation to hand washing facilities and unclean flooring.

The environment was not safe. We found concerns in relation to equipment being stored in communal areas which posed a trip hazard to people. Doors to unsafe areas not always being locked. Fire alarm testing did not consistently take place weekly.

Recruitment was not always carried out in line with Schedule 3 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014. Medicines were not always managed safely.

The provider did not ensure people had good person-centered care. People had limited access to activities. The dining room was not being used, meaning people had to eat meals in their bedrooms or the lounge, and care plans and risk assessments did not contain sufficient person-centered information.

Governance was not managed effectively. The provider had identified all the concerns we found on inspection. Where some concerns had been identified in provider audits, they had failed to address these satisfactorily.

Staff were kind and caring, treated people with dignity and respect and knew people well.

The registered manager was responsive to the concerns raised on inspection and started to update care plans during the inspection.

Updated 3 March 2026

During the inspection we received feedback from people who used the service and relatives. Some people could not directly tell us about their experience. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) during the visit to understand people’s experiences of care and to observe interactions between staff and those who could not easily express their views. These observations helped us gain insight into their experience of the care provided.

People told us positive things about living at Glynn Court. Two people said they felt safe because staff were always around and would help them if needed. People responded well to staff, clearly valuing speaking with them. Staff responded swiftly when people asked for assistance, often anticipating what people needed. Call bells did not ring for long periods. People told us the food was good. Staff provided any assistance needed in a respectful, unhurried manner.

Feedback from relatives was largely positive. They said staff knew their family member well and had a good understanding of their needs. They described the caring, kind approach of staff. They said the registered manager kept them well informed about any health issues. They felt comfortable to raise concerns about their family member’s care with the registered manager. One relative commented they had done so and the matter was addressed immediately.

While feedback was generally positive, we found elements of care did not meet the expected standards. This included people in the lounge having their walking frames stowed away from them, which could be restrictive, discouraging mobility.

Some relatives commented on a lack of activity. They said staff now seemed too busy to spend time with people, except during care. We observed people sat in the lounge during the morning, mostly withdrawn or asleep, not responding to the music playing. Staff were busy and only spoke with them to offer help.