Glynn Court Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care. This was because there was a lack of activities and meaningful engagement, people did not have access to the dining room and did not always have access to their walking frames. Care plans did not reflect peoples wishes and preferences.

This service scored 61 (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 did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People did not receive care that met all their needs and preferences. The registered manager told us there had been no activity coordinator since the last one left in March 2025. They told us, a singer came in to entertain people approximately every 2 months. Representatives from a local church visited the service. We did not observe any activities throughout our on-site inspection visits. This meant there was limited opportunity for people to partake in meaningful activities and placed them at risk of social isolation.

The dining room was not in use, instead being used to store equipment. The provider told us they were planning to build an equipment store in the garden to increase storage space. Due to the lack of a dining area people ate in their bedrooms or in the lounge. The lounge was set out with seats all around the outer edge of the room which had the potential to discourage social interaction, isolating people and making communication difficult. This was not conducive to a positive dining experience.

Care plans and risk assessments lacked detail about people’s individual care requirements and did not explain how they preferred their care to be provided. However, regular staff knew people well and were observed offering people choices during mealtimes.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined up and flexible.

Care records demonstrated, and relatives confirmed people were supported to attend routine and emergency appointments with a variety of healthcare professionals.

The registered manager told us they collaborated with healthcare professionals to ensure care was joined up. Healthcare professionals confirmed the registered manager and staff worked in partnership with them.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People did not always have access to policies in different formats, for example, large print. The registered manager told us all people had a copy of the complaints policy. However, when asked if the service had any accessible policies for people, she said, “We need to do an easy read complaints policy.” The registered manager told us the feedback surveys which were sent to people were more picture based than question based.Following the inspection the provider told us, “People were also supported by staff, where required, to understand information and express their views.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Staff knew people well. People and their relatives told us if they had a complaint, they would raise it with the registered manager or senior staff and felt sure it would be dealt with quickly and appropriately.

The registered manager told us they had not received any complaints. The registered manager told us, “If people have a concern the family usually draft an email. We will investigate and find a good outcome to improve things.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The provider had printed information about people to share with hospital and or ambulance crews when required. The information contained within these documents was not always accurate and up to date. This meant there was a risk care would not be supportive of choice and continuity.

People and their relatives told us, and documents demonstrated, people had access to appropriate healthcare when required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff treated people as individuals and adjusted care and support to meet individuals’ needs and preferences. Most staff had completed 3 yearly Equality and Diversity training and understood how the Equality Act 2010 applied to their role. The registered manager and staff gave us examples of how people’s outcomes had been improved since living at the service.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Where people were willing to discuss their end of life and emergency situations, ‘My future care’ plans were in place. People’s wishes were respected if they chose not to discuss their end of life at this current time. There were plans in place to revisit this with people.