CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Glastonbury Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable staffing, risk assessments, safe recruitment, infection control arrangements and medicines procedures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and people had access to nurses and other health professionals. Care plans varied in quality, and one person waited 20 minutes for a meal during the inspection.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors saw numerous caring and compassionate interactions. Staff knew people well, respected their choices and supported their dignity, relationships and emotional wellbeing.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reviewed as people's needs changed. People had activities, trips out, support for their faith and compassionate end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team had systems to monitor quality and learn from incidents and complaints. A new registered manager had been appointed since the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding caring; inspectors found safe, personalised care and some records and mealtime improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection in December 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, visitors and staff. They observed care and mealtimes and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, meetings and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Good. Caring was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found kind staff, enough staff to meet people's needs, personalised care, good support with health needs and a strong focus on people's comfort and dignity.
Some care plans varied in quality and detail. One person waited 20 minutes for a meal, and people were not offered a choice of condiments. The home was reviewing the mealtime experience. The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection.
Kind and compassionate staff
Staff were consistently described as kind, helpful and respectful. Inspectors observed staff offering reassurance and supporting people calmly.
“Throughout the inspection we observed and heard numerous caring and compassionate interactions between staff and people.” from the report
People were treated as individuals
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and routines. People and relatives were involved in decisions about care.
“Staff were able to tell us about people's past life history and what was important to them, staff recognised the importance of this.” from the report
Good safety arrangements
The home had enough staff, suitable recruitment checks and systems for managing risks, accidents, abuse concerns and medicines.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs and to keep them safe.” from the report
Strong end-of-life care
People's end-of-life preferences were recorded. The home had achieved Platinum status under the Gold Standards Framework.
“People could be sure that at the end of their lives they would be cared for with kindness and professionalism.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could join group or one-to-one activities, use the minibus and maintain links with local organisations, schools and faith groups.
“People had access to a variety of social and leisure activities.” from the report
Care plan quality varied
needs fixingSome care plans were less detailed or personalised than others. Inspectors said staff knew people well, but records were being improved.
“Care plans we saw were variable in quality and comprehensiveness” from the report
Mealtime improvements needed
minorOne person waited 20 minutes for their meal, and people were not offered a choice of condiments. The manager said this was under review.
“We did however, observe one person waiting 20 minutes for their meal on the first day of the inspection.” from the report
Some waits for call bells
minorCall bells were generally answered promptly, but one person said they could sometimes have to wait.
“They usually come quickly but I can have to wait.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every care plan is fully personalised and kept up to date?
- 02How do you monitor waiting times for meals now?
- 03How do people choose meals and extras such as condiments?
- 04How quickly are call bells answered, especially for people who may not be able to use them?
- 05How has the new registered manager maintained the Outstanding standard for caring?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the overall rating remained the same as at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 January 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 Glastonbury Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 November 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,020 to £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.