CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glanmore
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed, staff understood how to reduce harm, medicines were administered safely and there were enough staff available.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's physical, mental health and social needs were assessed. Staff were trained and supported, people had suitable food choices and could access healthcare when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as helpful, considerate and friendly. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity, involved in decisions and encouraged to develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, goals and preferences and were reviewed when circumstances changed. Information was provided in ways people could understand, and systems were available for complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff found the management team supportive and approachable. Quality checks identified improvements, including recording actions after incorrect fridge temperatures were found.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Glanmore was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with a recommendation about recording end-of-life wishes.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 23 October 2019. One inspector spoke with four people, three staff members and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment information, supervision records, incidents and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable risk assessments, good training and access to healthcare.
People were treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. Staff supported independence, personal choices, communication, social contact and healthy eating.
The home had systems to monitor quality and respond to concerns. Inspectors made one recommendation about identifying and recording people's end-of-life wishes. The previous inspection was also rated Good.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and protected. Staff had training to recognise abuse and understood people's individual risks.
“All those we spoke with told us they felt safe and protected at Glanmore.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff positively, and inspectors saw relaxed, good-humoured interactions. People were treated with dignity and supported to express their views.
“People told us they were treated with care by a helpful, considerate and friendly staff team.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped develop their care plans. Staff knew their circumstances, goals and aspirations and supported them in the way they wanted.
“Staff members could tell us about those they supported, in detail, indicating they knew people well.” from the report
Choice and independence
People made choices about food, healthcare appointments, activities and social contacts. They were encouraged to build skills such as cooking and cleaning.
“People were encouraged to develop their independence.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider had systems to identify improvements and respond to incidents, accidents, complaints and staff concerns.
“The management team and provider had systems in place to identify improvements and drive good care.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
minorInspectors recommended improving how people's end-of-life wishes are identified and recorded. No one was receiving end-of-life care during this inspection.
“We have made a recommendation regarding the identification and recording of end of life wishes.” from the report
- 01How do you now identify, record and review each person's end-of-life wishes?
- 02How will the new manager's registration process affect day-to-day leadership and support?
- 03How do you check that staff continue to understand each person's individual risks and support plans?
- 04How are people supported to make choices about healthcare appointments, food, activities and social contact?
- 05How do you record and follow up actions after incidents, complaints or quality checks?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC areas, and the previous Good ratings were reviewed rather than carried over without inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 November 2019 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, May 2017
Glanmore was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with Good ratings in all five areas.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 28 March 2017. One inspector spoke with four people living at the home, four support workers, a clinical support nurse and the registered manager. They also reviewed care and medicine records, other records and observed care.
Inspectors found that people were safe and received their medicines correctly. Staff had suitable training, asked for permission before providing care and supported people's health, choices, privacy and independence.
People said staff knew them well, listened to them and supported their personal goals. The home had systems to monitor quality, and people could raise concerns or suggest improvements.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It was also rated Good at the previous inspection in January 2015, so the report says it remained Good.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were given safely, and records were completed correctly.
“People were supported safely and their needs met by sufficient numbers of staff.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and had positive relationships with them. People described staff as kind and caring.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well and had good relationships with them.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in planning their care and setting personal goals. Staff supported independence and responded when needs changed.
“People continued to receive care and support that was individual to them.” from the report
Open management
People said they could speak openly with managers. The home used feedback, audits and visits to monitor its quality.
“Quality monitoring systems were in place which assessed and monitored the quality of service provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure staffing levels are sufficient for my relative's needs, including appointments and activities outside the home?
- 02How will you involve my relative in setting goals and reviewing their care if their needs change?
- 03What training and competency checks do staff have for my relative's specific health and behavioural support needs?
- 04How can my relative or our family raise a concern, and how will the home show that it has been acted on?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 May 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 Glanmore
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Telford and Wrekin
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 £1,200 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.