CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glebe Villa
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found important progress, but recruitment, staff training and management systems still fell short, and the home is no longer in special measures.
This was an unannounced focused inspection carried out over 15, 16 and 30 November 2022. One inspector spoke with people, staff, relatives and health professionals, observed care and checked care, medicine, training, recruitment and management records.
The home had improved since its previous Inadequate rating. People had more choice and control, could take part in activities and go out, and the use of restraint had greatly reduced. Health records, incident records and safety arrangements had also improved.
However, some staff did not have the required enhanced background checks. Staff training was incomplete, including training relevant to dementia, moving and handling, first aid and restraint. Management checks and records were still not reliable enough. The overall rating changed from Inadequate to Requires Improvement, and the home left special measures.
More choice and independence
People had more influence over meals, activities and their daily routines. They were supported to shop, attend local activities, visit places of interest and plan holidays.
“People were now being supported in a way that enabled them to have choice and control in their daily lives.” from the report
Less restraint
The use of restraint had reduced significantly. Staff had clearer guidance and new records were being used to review incidents.
“The use of restraint had greatly reduced. This was no longer being used on a daily basis as evidenced in the records viewed.” from the report
Safer premises and medicines
Radiators and doors had been made safer, medicines were stored and given as prescribed, and medicine audits had been reintroduced.
“Medicines were stored safely and administered in line with their prescription.” from the report
Better healthcare records
Each person now had an individual health record. This made it easier to monitor appointments and protected confidentiality.
“This meant staff could easily monitor and review each person and people's confidentiality was maintained.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousCare staff did not all have the enhanced background checks required for work with vulnerable adults. This was a continued breach of Regulation 19.
“The registered manager did not always follow their recruitment process and ensure adequate checks were in place for new care workers.” from the report
Incomplete staff training
seriousSome staff had not completed training needed for people's care, including moving and handling, dementia, first aid and restraint. This was a continued breach of Regulation 18.
“People were not supported by staff who were adequately trained and supported to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not cover all important areas, and some records were not easy to retrieve. The provider's systems were still not strong enough to identify and address shortfalls consistently. This was a continued breach of Regulation 17.
“We found no evidence that people had been harmed however, systems were still not robust enough to demonstrate there were effective systems to monitor the service by the provider or the registered manager.” from the report
Goals not fully recorded
needs fixingPeople's goals and aspirations were being explored, but they had not been formalised in care plans for everyone. Inspectors said this work needed to be completed and sustained.
“People's views were being sought in respect of their goals and aspirations but as, yet these had not been formalised into a plan of care for everyone and fully embedded into the philosophy of the service.” from the report
- 01Have all care staff now received enhanced DBS checks, and will you show how you check this before anyone starts work?
- 02Which staff still need training in restraint, moving and handling, dementia, food hygiene, first aid, the Mental Capacity Act or Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?
- 03How will you record and review each person's goals and aspirations in their care plan?
- 04How often are medicine, care plan, training and supervision audits now completed, and who checks the results?
- 05How will you ensure electronic daily, food and fluid records are available to staff and health professionals when needed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led; Responsive was not covered, and the overall rating also used ratings from the previous inspection for questions not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 January 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, December 2022
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious safety, dignity, staffing and leadership problems.
This was an unannounced inspection over three days in June and July 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Inadequate overall. Safe, Caring and Well-led were also Inadequate. Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found unsafe use of restraint, missing risk information, insufficient staffing, incomplete recruitment checks and staff who were not always respectful.
People and relatives said they were generally happy with the care, and inspectors found some medicines and infection control arrangements were working. However, the home did not protect people consistently or support their choice, dignity and independence. The previous overall rating was Good in 2018, so the overall rating had fallen.
Some positive views
People and relatives generally said they were happy with the care and support. People had personalised their bedrooms and attended social groups.
“People and their relatives said they were happy with the care and support.” from the report
Medicines arrangements
Inspectors found that medicines were stored safely and given as prescribed. Staff had received medicines training and had their competence checked.
“Medicines were stored safely and administered in line with their prescription.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention arrangements, including visitors, testing, PPE, cleaning and outbreak planning.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Unsafe restraint and safeguarding
seriousOne person was physically restrained during personal care by three staff who had not been trained in restraint. Records did not explain when or why restraint was used, and safeguarding alerts were not always made.
“There were no records detailing the restraint used, when, by who, whether the person had come to harm or if staffs' actions were in line with legislation and good practice guidelines.” from the report
Risks were not controlled
seriousFire doors were propped open, some radiators were not covered and staff lacked guidance for supporting a person safely with mobility and stairs.
“Two fire doors were propped open with a wooden door wedge, which meant in the event of a fire people would be at risk.” from the report
Not enough suitable staff
seriousStaffing had not been reviewed after two new admissions. At times, all daytime staff were supporting one person, leaving the other five people without staff support.
“Because there were only three staff working during the day this had an impact on other people living in the home as when all three staff were supporting this person the other five people had no staff to support them.” from the report
Poor dignity and respect
seriousStaff made derogatory comments about people in front of others. People were not consistently supported to choose when to eat, drink, use the toilet, shop or take part in activities.
“These discussions were inappropriate and were had in front of other people.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe provider's checks did not identify problems with safety, care plans, recruitment, training, incidents or the home's culture. Accident and incident records had not been properly maintained or reviewed.
“The provider and registered manager had failed to implement robust governance systems to ensure the quality and safety of the care provided met people's needs.” from the report
- 01What has changed about the use of restraint, and where can we see the person's current support plan, risk assessment and review records?
- 02How many staff are on duty during the day and night now, especially when one person needs three staff for personal care?
- 03What training and supervision have staff completed for learning disability, autism, mental health, dementia and restraint?
- 04How are people's choices about meals, drinks, bedtime, activities, clothing and community life recorded and acted on?
- 05What action has been completed in response to the warning notices, and what evidence can you show us?
The report rates Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led; it does not give a separate Responsive rating, and says ratings for key questions not inspected carry over from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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.
Every inspection of Glebe Villa
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2022InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 August 2011.
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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
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 £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.