CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glebe Rd
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were regularly reviewed, and staff understood safeguarding responsibilities. Staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control were also found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management oversight, audits and staff support were good. People, relatives, staff and professionals were encouraged to give feedback.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Glebe Rd rated Good; inspectors found people were safe, supported by staff who knew them well, and the home was well managed.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 5 July 2023. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff and a professional. They also observed support and checked care, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staff were safely recruited, medicines were given safely, and infection control arrangements were suitable. People said they felt safe and had enough staff support.
The overall rating stayed Good. However, this visit only assessed Safe and Well-led. The other areas used ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection, published on 7 March 2018.
Risk management
Care risks were assessed and reviewed. Staff understood how to support people safely during difficult situations.
“Risks associated with people's care were assessed and well managed.” from the report
Available staff
Inspectors saw staff respond promptly when people needed support. People said there were enough staff.
“During our inspection visit, we observed staff were available when people needed them and people's requests for support were responded to promptly.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Trained staff gave medicines as prescribed and their skills were checked regularly. Some people were supported to take medicines independently after risk assessments.
“People received their medicines as prescribed from trained staff whose competencies were regularly checked.” from the report
Good management checks
The provider and manager used audits and checks to monitor care records, staff skills and the environment. Staff said they received guidance and support.
“Managerial and provider oversight of the service was good, and a range of quality audits and checks took place to monitor the service and drive forward improvements.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and promoted their rights and dignity. The report described positive relationships between people and staff.
“People received personalised care from staff who knew them well and ensured their rights and dignity were promoted and protected.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you support my relative if they want to manage some of their medicines independently?
- 02How often are my relative's risk assessments reviewed, and what happens after an incident?
- 03How do you check that staff remain competent to give medicines and provide support?
- 04How can my relative and our family give feedback, and how will we hear what action was taken?
- 05Which ratings from the 7 March 2018 inspection still apply because they were not reassessed in this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings used in the overall rating carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection published on 7 March 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 August 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, March 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements needed to medicine guidance and social activities.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 January 2018. One inspector spoke with three people living at the home, two relatives, staff, managers and a commissioner. The inspector reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files, complaints and quality checks.
The home supports up to six younger adults with mental health conditions. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff were trained and there were enough staff. Medicines were managed safely overall, although one person's guidance for medicines taken when needed needed updating.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found a good standard of care in these areas, but it does not mean that everything was perfect.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and inspectors saw staff available to support them. Risks were assessed and managed in a way that supported independence.
“Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe being supported at the home.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff received induction, training and regular checks of their skills. The report said the home was fully compliant with the provider's essential training requirements.
“This record showed the home was 100% compliant with training the provider considered essential for staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people as individuals and respected their privacy, choices and dignity. People were supported to become more independent.
“People were treated as individuals and were supported with kindness, dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, goals and communication needs. People were involved in reviewing their care and working towards greater independence.
“People received personalised care and support which had been planned with their involvement and which was regularly reviewed.” from the report
Medicine guidance
needs fixingOne person's guidance for medicines taken when needed did not accurately describe what staff should do. The manager started updating it during the inspection.
“However, one person's PRN guidance required updating so it accurately reflected the actions staff were expected to take.” from the report
Social activities
needs fixingA relative felt the home had not done enough to support social activities and interaction. The manager accepted this needed development and had included improvements in the action plan.
“The registered manager acknowledged this was an area they needed to develop and so had taken some action.” from the report
Mixed views about complaints
minorThe home had a complaints procedure and people knew how to use it. However, relatives gave different views about whether concerns were taken seriously and responded to well.
“Relatives had mixed views on how responsive the provider was where concerns were raised.” from the report
- 01What has changed about the guidance for medicines taken when needed since the inspection?
- 02What social activities and community opportunities are currently available, and how are people supported to take part?
- 03How are relatives' concerns recorded, investigated and answered?
- 04How do you share information with health professionals when someone's mental health or physical health changes?
- 05How do you decide whether someone can safely manage more of their own medicines?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; a formal complaint about the provider was considered broadly but was not investigated as part of this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 March 2018 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 Rd
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 December 2013.
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 Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.