CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Glade
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risk assessments had been completed but were not always followed in practice. Medicines, staffing, safeguarding and most infection control arrangements were found to be safe, but clinical waste bins were stored incorrectly.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- People received suitable food, training and healthcare support. However, restrictions on food and drink affected some people's independence, and some mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions did not involve all relevant people.
- Caring?
- Requires improvement
- People appeared relaxed and staff were often kind and compassionate. However, people were left without interaction, staff did not always describe people respectfully, and opportunities for independence were missed.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Support plans recorded people's interests and preferences, but these were not consistently acted on. People had limited opportunities for outings, activities and social contact, creating a risk of boredom and isolation.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers and staff were described as passionate about supporting people, and some audits worked well. However, audits did not identify important problems with people's daily experiences, risk assessments, respectful language and social opportunities.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind staff and safe medicines, but people were not always supported safely, respectfully or according to their interests.
The inspection took place on 29 November 2021. One inspector spoke with three people, five relatives and eight staff. They observed care, checked records and reviewed medicines, recruitment, training and management information.
The home had enough staff for essential care, and people were supported safely with medicines, food and health appointments. Staff were trained in safeguarding and infection control. However, risk assessments were not always followed, clinical waste bins were stored incorrectly and people were sometimes left for long periods without interaction.
Inspectors found that people's preferences, independence and social activities were not always supported. Some people had limited chances to leave the home or follow interests. Staff did not always use respectful language, and mental capacity and best interest decisions needed review.
The overall rating and all five question ratings were Requires Improvement. The home breached regulations about person-centred care and good governance. This was the first inspection since the current provider registered the service, although the service under a previous provider had been rated Good.
Safe medicines
Staff were trained to give medicines safely, their competence was checked regularly and managers audited medicines.
“People were supported safely with their medicines. Staff were trained to administer medicines safely and had their competencies to do this checked regularly.” from the report
Safeguarding and recruitment
Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Recruitment checks were completed to help ensure staff were suitable.
“Staff were trained in safeguarding, knew what signs could mean abuse had occurred and knew how to report concerns to external bodies” from the report
Health and nutrition
People received support with their diets and healthcare. Staff worked with health professionals and prepared hospital passports.
“Staff contacted health professionals such as GP's, district nurses and dentists if people needed support from them.” from the report
Communication and choice
Staff used different communication methods and supported people to make some everyday choices.
“People were supported to communicate in various ways such as signing, pictures or written words.” from the report
Risk assessments not followed
seriousInspectors saw staff not following instructions designed to reduce risks such as choking and falls. This could increase the risk of harm.
“However, these risk assessments were not always followed by the staff team.” from the report
Isolation and limited activities
needs fixingPeople were left for extended periods without conversation or activities. Some had not been supported to leave the home or follow their recorded interests.
“People were left alone for extended periods of time without any interaction from staff either alone in their rooms or walking around the service.” from the report
Dignity and independence
needs fixingStaff did not always use respectful language, and some people were not given chances to do tasks they could manage themselves.
“There were missed opportunities to promote people's independence.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits did not identify several problems found during the inspection, including missed activities, poor language in records and risks not being followed.
“We found no evidence that people had been harmed. However, audits were not effective identifying where improvements were needed regarding people's lived experience in the service” from the report
Mental capacity decisions
needs fixingRestrictions on food and drink affected some people who could make their own choices. Some best interest decisions did not involve all relevant people.
“We recommend that the registered manager review DoLS, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions in place for people to ensure that restrictions in place are in their best interests.” from the report
Clinical waste storage
needs fixingClinical waste bins in two communal bathrooms were not stored according to infection control procedures. The home acted on this during the inspection.
“Clinical waste bins were not being stored in line with good infection control procedures the two communal bathrooms at the service.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure every person's risk assessment is followed in practice?
- 02How will you ensure that each person has regular activities, conversations and outings that match their interests?
- 03How do you support people to be independent, including getting food and drinks when they are able to choose for themselves?
- 04How are mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions reviewed, and who is involved in those decisions?
- 05How do your current audits identify problems with people's daily experiences rather than only medicines and health and safety?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; it was the first inspection since the current provider registered the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 2022 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection prevention and control measures.
The inspection took place on 22 February 2021. It was announced in advance and focused only on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were managed safely, people were admitted safely, and shielding and social distancing rules were followed. They were also assured that staff used personal protective equipment safely and that testing was available.
The home supported people to keep in touch with relatives and community activities through tablets and telephone calls. The report gives no overall quality rating because this was a targeted inspection.
Visitor safety
Visits were arranged by appointment, while people were supported to stay in contact with relatives and activities using tablets and telephones.
“visiting was facilitated by appointment only” from the report
Testing and isolation
People returning from hospital or newly admitted to the home were required to isolate for 14 days. Regular COVID-19 testing was in place for people and staff.
“All people admitted to the home or returning from hospital were required to isolate as a precautionary measure for 14 days.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had training about using personal protective equipment and received further supervision about COVID-19 safety.
“Staff had been provided training on how to wear, put on and take off personal protective equipment (PPE)” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering PPE, testing, hygiene, social distancing and preventing or managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are visits currently arranged and supported?
- 03How often are people and staff tested, and what happens after a positive result?
- 04How are new admissions and people returning from hospital managed?
- 05When was the home's last full inspection and what were its ratings for caring, responsive and well-led?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the other four key questions or give an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 2021 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 The Glade
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 April 2019.
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
88 live-in carers within about an hour of Bedford
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 £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.