CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Glebe House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines management. Infection control arrangements were also judged effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff supported people's health, nutrition and access to healthcare. However, some staff had not completed all the training needed or refresher training.
- Caring?
- Good
- People, relatives and professionals described staff as kind, compassionate and respectful. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and religious and cultural beliefs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and families were involved in care planning. Activities were available, although COVID-19 restrictions had limited outings at the time.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team had effective quality checks, monitored incidents and supported staff. Families and professionals said communication and leadership were good.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff training still to be completed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 3 March 2022. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. Records about care, medicines, staffing, training, accidents, complaints and quality checks were also reviewed.
Inspectors found enough staff on each shift and no use of agency staff. Medicines, risks, safeguarding, infection control and equipment were managed safely. People received healthcare support, enjoyed the food and were supported by staff who understood their needs.
People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and caring. Care plans reflected people's preferences, and families were involved. The management team had effective checks in place and communicated well with families and other professionals.
This was the first inspection under the current provider. All five areas were rated Good. The previous provider's rating was also Good, published in April 2018.
Consistent staffing
There were enough staff and the home did not rely on agency workers. This meant people were cared for by staff who knew them.
“Staff turnover was low and the service did not use agency staff, which meant people received consistent care from staff who were familiar to them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors also saw support for dignity, privacy and independence.
“Staff demonstrated kindness and compassion in the way they cared for people.” from the report
Personalised support
People and relatives helped develop care plans. Staff understood people's histories, preferences, communication methods and individual needs.
“People and their relatives were involved in the development of people's care plans.” from the report
Good management oversight
The home used audits, management reports and quality visits to monitor care and safety. Families were kept informed about important changes.
“The provider, registered manager and deputy manager had implemented effective quality monitoring systems, which helped ensure people received safe and consistent care.” from the report
Training gaps
needs fixingThe training records showed that some staff had not completed all the training they needed, and some refresher training was due. The manager later provided evidence that further training had been booked.
“However, the home's training record indicated some staff had not attended all aspects of the training they needed and that some staff needed refresher training.” from the report
Communication difficulties
minorSome relatives said that communication could be difficult with staff whose English was not strong. The home had arranged English lessons twice a week for staff who needed them.
“Some relatives told us some staff did not have a good command of English, which could make communication difficult.” from the report
Some refurbishment still needed
minorSome relatives felt the building needed more redecoration. Inspectors noted that refurbishment had already started and had improved the environment.
“It could do with some refurbishment and paint to make it more attractive and brighter.” from the report
- 01Which staff training and refresher training identified in the report has now been completed?
- 02How do you check that communication is clear when a staff member's English needs improvement?
- 03What refurbishment work has been completed since the inspection, and what remains to be done?
- 04How are my relative's care plan, risks and preferences reviewed with the family?
- 05How will you support my relative to take part in activities and family events?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 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, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 24 March 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found arrangements for safe visits, testing, admissions, shielding, social distancing and the use of personal protective equipment. They also found the home was clean, with extra cleaning schedules and regular infection control audits.
Staff had received training and their practice was checked. Staff retention was good and no agency staff had been used, so people received care from a consistent team.
The service was inspected but not rated. This visit did not give an overall rating or ratings for the other four questions.
Safe visiting
The home had arrangements to support visits from families, friends and healthcare professionals. When visits were not possible, staff helped people stay in contact by telephone and video calls.
“Arrangements were in place to enable safe visiting from families, friends and healthcare professionals.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Extra cleaning schedules were in place and infection control standards were audited regularly.
“The home was clean and hygienic. Additional cleaning schedules had been implemented and standards of infection prevention and control (IPC) were audited regularly.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff had training in using personal protective equipment safely. The registered manager also observed staff practice to check that guidance was followed.
“Staff had received training in the safe use of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Consistent staff team
Staff retention during the pandemic was good and no agency staff had been used. This meant people received care from a consistent team.
“Staff retention during the pandemic had been good and no agency staff had been used.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current arrangements for visits from families, friends and healthcare professionals?
- 02How do you check that staff are still using personal protective equipment safely and following infection control guidance?
- 03Are extra cleaning schedules and regular infection prevention and control audits still in place?
- 04How are new admissions currently tested and supported during any isolation period?
- 05What is the current use of agency staff and how do you maintain a consistent staff team?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures under the Safe question; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 April 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 Glebe House Care Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 December 2020.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.