CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glebe House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about visiting, isolation, protective equipment, cleaning and infection-control policies. They were only somewhat assured about testing because results were sent only to the registered manager, which could delay action if that person was absent.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Glebe House: inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements with a weakness in how test results were received.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 30 March 2021. It followed a coronavirus outbreak and focused on infection prevention and control, rather than assessing the full range of care.
Inspectors found safe visiting arrangements, good use of protective equipment, hand hygiene, cleaning and isolation procedures. They were assured in most areas of infection control.
They were only somewhat assured about coronavirus testing. Test results for people living at the home were sent only to the registered manager, which could delay isolation if that person was away.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Safe visiting
Visits were by appointment and included hand sanitising, temperature checks, protective equipment and lateral flow testing. Visiting times were spaced to allow cleaning.
“The provider had an up to date visiting policy in place to ensure that visiting was safe for people living at the service and their families.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had training and were confident about using and disposing of protective equipment. Inspectors saw staff using it correctly and promoting hand hygiene.
“Staff were observed wearing correct PPE and promoting hand hygiene, and the registered manager had developed a Covid-19 handover sheet which staff could carry to remind them of good IPC practice.” from the report
Cleaning and hygiene
The premises were clean and hygienic. There were daily cleaning schedules, including extra cleaning of frequently touched areas, with checks by a supervisor.
“The premises were clean and hygienic and there were daily cleaning schedules in place for rooms and communal spaces.” from the report
Isolation arrangements
People admitted to the home, or returning from hospital, were isolated in line with government guidance. People with symptoms or positive tests were isolated in single rooms where possible.
“People with symptoms of Covid-19 and those that had received a positive test were isolated in single occupancy rooms and where possible in one area of the home.” from the report
Access to test results
needs fixingAll test results for people living at the home were sent only to the registered manager. Inspectors said this could delay isolation procedures if that person was away from work.
“Although the registered manager had good oversight of when people and staff would be tested, all test results for people would be sent only to the registered manager.” from the report
- 01What contingency arrangements are now in place to receive coronavirus test results if the registered manager is away?
- 02Who can act immediately when a person receives a positive test result?
- 03How are visitors currently booked, checked and supported to follow infection-control measures?
- 04How often are communal areas and high-touch surfaces cleaned, and who checks the cleaning records?
- 05How are people admitted to the home or returning from hospital isolated and monitored?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control after a coronavirus outbreak; it did not assess the full range of care and gave no overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 May 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, February 2019
Glebe House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 21 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, a healthcare professional and managers. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, incident reports and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, good infection control and suitable care plans. People received support with their health, nutrition, activities, communication and end of life care.
People said staff were kind, respectful and responsive. They were involved in decisions about their care and could raise concerns. The home had good links with healthcare professionals and its previous Good rating was maintained.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff suitability checks, risk assessments and emergency arrangements were in place.
“There was sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Health support
People's health needs were monitored and referrals were made promptly when needed. The home worked with healthcare professionals to provide coordinated care.
“People's healthcare needs were assessed and met. There was a coordinated approach to people's care.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff positively and inspectors saw compassionate interactions. Staff protected people's dignity, privacy and choices.
“Staff were kind and caring. Compassionate interactions between people and staff remained.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences and staff supported people to choose how they spent their time. Activities and community links helped people stay occupied and connected.
“People continued to receive a personalised service that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Management and quality checks
The management team was viewed positively. Audits, meetings and feedback were used to check the service and act when improvements were needed.
“Quality assurance processes ensured that the systems and processes within the home were effective.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's specific health needs, and how quickly would you contact outside healthcare professionals if their condition changed?
- 02How would you support my relative to remain independent and make choices about their care and daily routine?
- 03What activities would be suitable for my relative's interests, and how would you support them if they preferred to spend time alone?
- 04How would you meet my relative's communication needs, including any sight, hearing or other difficulties?
- 05How are relatives kept informed about changes in a person's care, and how can they raise a complaint or concern?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including the accommodation and care provided; all five question ratings were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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 Glebe House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
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 17 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.