Glynn Court Residential Home

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.This was because the provider’s governance systems failed to identify people were not always receiving effective care and prompt action had not been taken to make improvements.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement.

Staff were committed to provide people with good quality care. However, the care people received and the systems in place did not always reflect the service’s values and objectives as set out in their statement of purpose. People did not receive care that was always high quality or person centred. Staff we spoke with all described the conflict they sensed between wanting to provide personalised, unhurried support to each person, and having to work rapidly to fulfil their duties.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

We identified breaches of regulations and concerns in areas such as, managing risk, medicines management, staffing, person-centred care and governance. Leaders had not independently identified and acted on all these concerns prior to our inspection. This meant some development was needed in their skills and knowledge to lead effectively.

Most relatives told us they were consulted about their relative’s care and care plans. Staff told us the registered manager was visible, accessible and approachable.

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

People living in the service were asked for their views at meetings and the registered manager had an open-door policy. We saw evidence of the registered manager acting on feedback from people following 1 of these meetings. Without exception, relatives and staff said they felt comfortable to speak with the registered manager about any concerns they might have about the home or about individual people’s care. Staff told us they were confident the registered manager would act if they raised any concerns with them.

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. Staff told us they felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment.

Staff felt the registered manager considered and accommodate their individual circumstances when planning shifts. People with protected characteristics felt supported.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

The provider’s own governance systems failed to identify people were not always receiving effective care and therefore prompt action had not been taken to make improvements.

Quality assurance audits had been completed. However, these had not always been effective in identifying the shortfalls we found at this inspection, such as people’s care plans missing information or containing out of date information, concerns with medicines management, safe environments, safe staffing and person-centred care including the lack of meaningful activities.

Where the provider’s audits did identify concerns for action, they did not always bring about improvement. For example, the provider’s monthly window safety audit identified hinge repairs were required to windows in October, November and December 2025.

The registered manager was responsive to some of the concerns raised and started to make improvements during the inspection.

The registered manager was able to confidently tell us how they ensured safe record keeping by following the principles of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

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.

The registered manager shared with us positive examples of collaborative working in partnership. A professional involved with the service told us, “The registered manager is always on hand to provide information about people, always remaining present during the consultations to provide continuity and reassurance to people and their families should they be present.”

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. We found some concerns during the inspection which we have highlighted throughout our report. Although the provider was motivated to learn and improve the service for people, they were limited by the lack of effective risk and quality monitoring systems. This meant they were not always aware of shortfalls to enable prompt improvement and learning.

The registered manager was responsive during our inspection and told us they were taking learning from this inspection and would be sharing this across their organisation.

The registered manager shared with us several ideas of how they wanted to improve people’s experience. These included continuing to try and recruit a new activities coordinator and returning the dining room back to a functioning dining room. They told us they had started to work on care plans and risk assessments to make them more person centred. However, time was needed for these newly introduced and planned practices to bring about the required improvements and embed them into practice.