CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Aurem Care (Glebe House)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Glebe House Care Home (Nursing): inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control.
This was an announced inspection on 18 November 2020. It was part of a CQC review of infection prevention and control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice in visiting arrangements, new admissions, use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning and staff training. Visitors were screened, had their temperature taken, used hand sanitiser and wore masks.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated. This report does not provide ratings for the other four questions.
Safer visiting
Visits were booked in advance and visitors had health checks, temperature checks, hand sanitiser and masks. A separate visiting area was provided.
“Visitors to the service answered health screening questions, had their temperature taken, and contact details recorded for track and trace purposes.” from the report
New admissions
People admitted from hospital had a negative COVID-19 test and were isolated for 14 days while being watched for symptoms. They were retested as soon as possible.
“New admissions to the home from hospital had received a negative COVID-19 test and isolated for 14 days” from the report
Identifiable staff
Staff wore badges showing their photograph and name. This helped people recognise staff while masks were being worn.
“Staff wore a badge with their photograph and name which helped people to feel reassured and familiar with staff” from the report
Infection control training
Staff received infection control updates during handovers and supervision meetings. The meetings took place with social distancing.
“Staff received update sessions on infection control by the manager in handover and supervision meetings.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened, and is the separate visiting area still used?
- 02What is the current process for testing and isolating people admitted from hospital?
- 03How are staff trained and updated on infection prevention and control now?
- 04How does the home make sure staff use protective equipment safely?
- 05What were the most recent ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, since this inspection did not rate them?
This was an announced thematic inspection focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some risks around emergency evacuation and call bells.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 September 2017. Three inspectors spoke with people living in the home, a relative and staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff supervision records and management documents.
The home provided residential, nursing and respite care for older people who were physically frail. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable recruitment checks and appropriate safeguarding arrangements. People’s health, food and drink needs were supported, and staff followed consent and liberty safeguards.
People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and attentive. Care plans reflected people’s needs and choices. Activities were available and complaints were reviewed. The home had systems for checking quality and making improvements.
The overall rating was Good. Each of the five areas inspected was also rated Good. The report noted some potential difficulty evacuating people because of the building layout, that call bells were not always within reach, and that one complaint was still being investigated.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs. Medicines were given, stored and recorded safely.
“Medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed calm, friendly and respectful support.
“Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people’s choices, routines, health needs and support requirements. People and relatives were involved in care planning.
“Care plans were legible and person centred and people's choices and preferences were clearly documented.” from the report
Activities and involvement
The home offered a range of activities, including music, films, games and reminiscence. People and staff could suggest improvements.
“People had access to activities and people were protected from social isolation.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, surveys, meetings and action plans to check care and address issues.
“There were robust systems in place to ensure the quality of care.” from the report
Emergency evacuation
seriousInspectors said the layout could make it significantly harder to evacuate people in an emergency. Personal emergency evacuation plans were in place, but this is important to discuss for anyone with complex mobility needs.
“The premises were not purpose built and the layout was such that it could present significant difficulties in evacuating people in the event of an emergency.” from the report
Call bells
needs fixingStaff raised that call bells were not always within people’s reach. The home had started audits to address this.
“At a nurses meeting it was raised that calls bells were not always in reach of people.” from the report
Complaint still under investigation
minorOne complaint made during the year had not been completed by the time of the inspection. Families may wish to ask how complaints are now tracked through to resolution.
“There had been one complaint at the service this year which was still being investigated.” from the report
- 01How would you evacuate my relative safely if there were a fire or another emergency, given the building layout?
- 02How do you check every person can reach their call bell, including people cared for in their rooms?
- 03What happened to the complaint that was still being investigated at the inspection?
- 04How will you assess whether staffing levels remain enough if residents’ needs become more complex?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the care plan and making choices about daily routines?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous inspection in March 2015 found no concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 September 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Aurem Care (Glebe House)
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.