CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glasson House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about visitor controls, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing and managing outbreaks. They were only somewhat assured about social distancing and safety linked to the layout and hygiene of the premises.
- Effective?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not give a rating or finding for this question.
- Caring?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not give a rating or finding for this question.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not give a rating or finding for this question.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not give a rating or finding for this question.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Glasson House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control practices but some gaps in social distancing and risk assessment.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 14 December 2020. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found several good practices. Visitors had temperature checks and handwashing facilities. Staff used personal protective equipment, cleaning was detailed, and staff and residents took part in regular testing.
The inspectors were only somewhat assured about social distancing and safety linked to the building layout. The infection-control policy was general rather than specific to the home, and some risks had not yet been assessed.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report gives findings about infection control, rather than a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Visitor infection controls
Visitors had temperature checks, handwashing facilities and clear instructions about handwashing and protective equipment.
“Staff asked visitors to the service to have their temperature taken on arrival and provided facilities for handwashing.” from the report
Cleaning
The home had a detailed cleaning routine, including regular cleaning of frequently touched points such as railings and handles.
“The service had a detailed cleaning regime which the dedicated cleaner followed.” from the report
Testing programme
Staff were tested weekly and people living in the home were tested monthly.
“The service participated in a weekly testing programme for staff and monthly testing for people using the service.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors were assured that protective equipment was being used effectively and safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Social distancing
needs fixingThe building layout, especially the hallways, made social distancing difficult. Inspectors were only somewhat assured that shielding and social distancing rules were being met.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was meeting shielding and social distancing rules.” from the report
Risk assessments and policy
needs fixingThe infection-control policy was general rather than specific to the home. Risks linked to the building layout and to staff from black and minority ethnic backgrounds had not been assessed at the time of inspection.
“Risks relating to the layout of the building and risks to staff of black and minority ethnic backgrounds had not been assessed.” from the report
Premises safety
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured about safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was promoting safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.” from the report
- 01How have you changed the layout or arrangements in the hallways to make social distancing easier?
- 02Has the infection-control policy been rewritten specifically for this home?
- 03Have you completed risk assessments for the building layout and for staff from black and minority ethnic backgrounds?
- 04How often are frequently touched surfaces, such as railings and handles, cleaned now?
- 05How are staff and residents currently included in the testing programme?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 January 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.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but cleanliness and maintenance meant the home was Requires Improvement for safety.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 3 December 2018. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff, a relative and a professional. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas and quality checks.
People said they felt safe and staff supported their independence. Medicines were managed safely. Care plans were detailed and personalised, and people were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported people with health appointments, activities, family relationships and community life.
The main problem was the condition of parts of the home. Inspectors found unhygienic and poorly maintained areas in some bedrooms and bathrooms. The overall rating was Good, but the safety rating was Requires Improvement. The other four ratings were Good.
Kind and respectful care
People had positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw a friendly atmosphere and staff respecting people's dignity and choices.
“We observed a friendly and informal atmosphere in the home where people and staff engaged in conversation freely.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans explained people's health needs, routines, preferences and goals. They were reviewed monthly and updated when needs changed.
“Care plans and risk assessments clearly detailed the support people required to maintain good physical, emotional and mental health.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were given as prescribed, records were complete and stocks matched the records checked.
“Medicines were managed safely at the service and people received their medicines, as prescribed.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were encouraged to cook, shop, attend activities and work towards personal goals. Staff supported people to do what they could for themselves.
“People were supported to maintain and increase their independence.” from the report
Cleanliness and maintenance
needs fixingSome bedrooms and bathrooms were unhygienic or poorly maintained. Inspectors found issues including stained items, rusty grab rails, a soiled bed rail and strong urine odours.
“We identified cleanliness and maintenance concerns in some people's bedrooms and bathrooms” from the report
Emergency evacuation plans
needs fixingCare plans did not contain personal emergency evacuation plans explaining the support people might need in an emergency. The home sent completed plans after the inspection.
“People's care plans did not contain personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) explaining the support that they may require to evacuate the property in an emergency.” from the report
- 01What cleaning and maintenance work was completed after the inspection, and how is it checked now?
- 02Have all bedrooms and bathrooms been checked for stains, odours, rusty fittings and damaged or soiled equipment?
- 03Are personal emergency evacuation plans now in every person's care records, and are staff familiar with them?
- 04How many staff are on duty during the day and at night, and how is cover arranged when someone is absent?
- 05How are people's monthly care plan reviews and individual goals carried out in practice?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with checks of care, medicines, staffing, records, premises and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 April 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 Glasson House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnet
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 £1,300 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“Folasade is really kind, patient and respectful, has a fantastic sense of humour and such a positive outlook on life.”
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.