- Homecare service
Living Glory Social Care
Assessment report published 5 January 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 08 September 2025 to 13 October 2025.
We announced the assessment on 08 September 2025 and carried out visits to the office on 09, 10 and 11 September 2025. The service had a registered manager who is responsible for supervising the management of the regulated activity provided.
The service is a domiciliary care agency and provides personal care to people living in their own homes. Not everyone was receiving personal care. CQC only inspects where people are receiving the regulated activity personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we consider any wider social care provided. At the time of this assessment 100 people were receiving support with personal care.
The assessment was prompted following a review of information we held about the service and to assess where improvements had been made based upon the previous assessment when we identified 8 breaches of regulations. These were in relation to person centred care, gaining consent, safe care and treatment, safeguarding, receiving and acting on complaints, good governance, staffing and fit and proper persons employed.
At this assessment we found not enough improvement had been made and the provider remained in breach of 7 of the 8 regulations. They had improved their management of receiving and acting on complaints.
Although there were plans to support people, many risks were not managed, and staff lacked clear guidance about people’s known health conditions. The information and instructions given to staff needed improvement so they could manage risks properly and support people safely.
The provider’s audits of the service failed to identify the concerns we found during this assessment. We could not be assured there were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience to support people safely.
The provider failed to ensure all staff received suitable training, competency assessments and regular supervisions to maintain high-quality care.
Recruitment practices were not robust, including the appropriate checks prior to staff commencing employment and working with vulnerable people and children.
Processes were not robust for people who required support with their medicines.
Systems to monitor people’s calls were not effective leading to late, short and missed calls.
People were not receiving consistent person-centred care that met their needs. We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found they failed to meet these requirements.
In instances where CQC has decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.
This service remains in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.
People's experience of this service
Most people and relatives were positive about the quality of the care.
People told us overall they felt safe with the staff members who supported them. However, some people and their relatives we spoke with told us they had not been involved in planning their care, reviews or feedback on the service. There was some evidence of feedback being gathered from people.
People said they received care from staff who treated them as individuals and they had regular care staff, who were usually on time. However, this was not reflected by the standard of training staff had received and the lack of oversight of calls taking place, which led to some people raising concerns about missed calls. Support plans did not demonstrate a holistic, person-centred approach to meet individual needs and guide staff
Information was not provided in a format to meet individuals’ needs.
People and relatives felt able to complain and told us they would contact the office if they needed to, although not all felt their concerns were acted on.