CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glasshouse Hill
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, staffing, medicines, infection control and incidents were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this report. The report says staff supported people to make decisions within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this report. Inspectors said people received person-centred care from staff who knew them well.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this report. The report says care took account of people's preferences and what was important to them.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive and open culture, clear management arrangements and regular audits with action plans. People, relatives and staff were given ways to provide feedback.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and strong management at the home.
The home provides personal care for up to 11 people with acquired brain injuries. There were 9 people living there during the inspection. Inspectors visited unannounced on 24 October 2023 and spoke with people, relatives and staff.
Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were reviewed, staffing levels were suitable, medicines were managed safely and the home was visibly clean. Staff supported people with their choices and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
People received care based on their preferences from staff who knew them well. Inspectors also found an open culture, regular checks on quality and good working relationships with health professionals.
The overall rating was Good. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good, and both ratings remained unchanged from the previous inspection published in February 2019.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and concerns were referred to the relevant authorities.
“People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Clean and safe home
The home was visibly clean. Staff followed infection prevention procedures and had access to protective equipment.
“The home was visibly clean and free from malodours.” from the report
Person-centred care
Staff knew people well and supported their preferences and choices. Families were included in decisions about care.
“People received person-centred care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Good oversight
The provider used audits, action plans and feedback to monitor and improve the service.
“Action plans were created from audits. These were closely monitored by the registered manager and reviewed by the provider's quality team.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's individual risks and changing needs?
- 02How do you make sure medicines are given safely and that any errors are dealt with quickly?
- 03How many staff will be available for my relative during the day, at night and at weekends?
- 04How will my family be told about accidents, incidents or changes in my relative's care?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in decisions about their care and preferences?
This inspection focused on the Safe and Well-led questions; the report does not give ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 November 2023 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, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and staff support needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 January 2019. One inspector reviewed care, medicines, staffing, training, health and safety records, and quality checks. They spoke with three people living at the home, staff, the manager and an occupational therapist, and observed care.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable care plans, good links with health professionals, kind relationships and activities based on people's preferences.
Inspectors also found some areas needing attention. Certain safeguarding and recruitment decisions needed clearer records. Some staff had not received regular supervision, and not all new staff had completed the required direct observations for their care certificate. The manager was also not aware of the Accessible Information Standards, although the report says the home was meeting the principles.
Safe medicines support
Medicines were given by trained and competent staff. The home had checks and procedures for responding to medicine errors.
“People were safely supported with their medicines by a trained and competent staff team.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff positively, and inspectors saw compassionate interactions. People's privacy, dignity and individual identities were respected.
“People were treated with dignity and respect and that their privacy was supported by staff members.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped develop and review their care plans. Staff knew their needs, preferences and communication styles, and activities reflected their interests.
“We saw the care and support people received reflected their personal needs and wishes.” from the report
Support for independence
People were supported to retain and improve their skills through rehabilitation and access to adapted equipment.
“People were supported to develop their independence.” from the report
Some decisions were not clearly recorded
needs fixingSafeguarding and intervention decisions needed to be recorded more clearly in care plans so staff could work consistently. The manager agreed to make the changes.
“any protection and intervention decisions needed to be clearly documented in peoples care and support plans to ensure consistency.” from the report
Recruitment records needed strengthening
needs fixingThe manager needed to show how decisions were made when information from previous employers was limited. The manager agreed to improve this.
“the registered manager needed to evidence their decision making when employing new staff members when they received limited information from the person's previous employers.” from the report
Some staff support was overdue
needs fixingSome staff said they had not received regular one-to-one supervision. The manager had made this a priority, and only a few sessions were still outstanding at the inspection.
“Some staff members told us that they had not received regular supervision.” from the report
Training observations were incomplete
needs fixingNot all new staff had completed the required number of direct observations for the care certificate. The manager knew about this and was working to complete them.
“However, not all new staff members had received the required number of direct observations as part of this certificate.” from the report
Accessible information knowledge
minorThe manager was not aware of the Accessible Information Standards. Inspectors said the home was nevertheless meeting the principles through its assessments of people's communication needs.
“However, the registered manager was not aware of the accessible information standards albeit they were meeting the principles as part of their assessment of people's communication styles.” from the report
- 01Have all safeguarding and intervention decisions now been clearly recorded in people's care and support plans?
- 02How do you record and review recruitment decisions when information from a previous employer is limited?
- 03Have all staff received regular supervision, and how often are these one-to-one sessions held?
- 04Have all new staff completed the required direct observations for the care certificate?
- 05How do you now apply the Accessible Information Standards to people's communication needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the care, premises and all five key questions; the previous inspection, published on 23 August 2016, had also rated the home Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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.
Every inspection of Glasshouse Hill
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.