CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Glebefields Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe recruitment and recorded checks of risks such as mobility, skin damage, fire safety and equipment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans were reviewed. Staff had relevant training, people's nutritional needs were monitored and the home worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described kind and compassionate staff. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and dignity, asking permission before care and supporting people's independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's histories, preferences and communication needs. People had a choice of activities, including one-to-one support, and complaints were investigated and answered.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership, teamwork and quality checks. The manager had plans for further improvements and was still in the process of registering with the CQC.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Glebefields Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some dementia-area improvements still planned.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, a relative, staff and outside professionals. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, complaints and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People described kind staff, good food, suitable activities and care that met their needs. Inspectors also found safe staffing, medicines given as prescribed and effective work with health professionals.
This was an improvement from Requires Improvement at the previous full inspection and at a focused inspection in January 2019. The earlier breach about medicines had been corrected, and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were caring and kind. Inspectors saw staff respect privacy, explain care and support people in an unhurried way.
“People told us they received caring and kind support from compassionate staff.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
The previous medicines problem had been addressed. Staff handling medicines were trained and had their competence checked.
“At this inspection we found people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and personal choice
People could take part in group or individual activities, including outings and links with the local community.
“People had opportunities to engage in group activities and there were one to one sessions for people who chose or required to stay in their bedroom.” from the report
Improved leadership
Inspectors found a positive culture, supportive teamwork and audits that were used to track improvements.
“There was an open, transparent and positive culture demonstrated by the team and staff told us there was "definitely a no blame" culture.” from the report
Dementia-area design
minorInspectors said the dementia wing needed more dementia-friendly colours and more sensory stimulation. Managers said refurbishment had already been considered and planned.
“The unit would benefit from the use of dementia friendly colour and more prominent use of sensory stimulation aids.” from the report
Carpet replacement pending
minorA need to replace a carpet had been identified, but the work had not yet happened during the inspection.
“The environment was kept clean and we saw where a need for a carpet replacement had been identified this had been on order and was going to be actioned in due course.” from the report
- 01Has the planned refurbishment of the dementia wing been completed, including the use of dementia-friendly colours and sensory aids?
- 02Has the carpet identified for replacement now been replaced?
- 03Has the manager completed registration with the CQC?
- 04How often are medicines records and medicines audits checked now that the previous medicines breach has been addressed?
- 05How is agency staff use being reduced while keeping care consistent?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, following previous Requires Improvement ratings and an earlier breach about medicines. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 August 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.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Glebefields Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found staffing had improved, but medicines were not always managed safely.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 31 January 2019. Inspectors looked at safety and how well the home was led, after public concerns about clinical practices and to check progress since the June 2018 inspection.
The main problem was medicines. Some people did not receive medicines as prescribed. Medicines were not always stored correctly, and handwritten medicine records were not always double-checked. This was a breach of Regulation 12, relating to safe care and treatment.
Inspectors found improvements in staffing and systems since the previous inspection. Staff were described as consistent and reliable, and people said call bells were answered promptly. However, the home's checks had not found the medicines problems, so both inspected areas were rated Requires Improvement.
Improved staffing
Inspectors found consistent and reliable staff. People said staff were available and responded to call bells within a reasonable time.
“People were supported by consistent, reliable, punctual staff and praised the continuity of care received.” from the report
Risk assessments
People's risks were recorded and updated when their needs changed. Staff were familiar with and followed the risk plans.
“Risks to people's well-being were assessed, recorded and updated when people's needs changed.” from the report
Safeguarding arrangements
Staff knew how to raise safeguarding concerns, and safeguarding procedures were available in the office.
“People were supported by staff that knew how to raise safeguarding concerns.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome people missed medicines or did not receive them as prescribed. Fridge temperatures were outside the recommended range for several days, and handwritten medicine records were not always checked.
“The provider did not always ensure that people received safe care and treatment.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home's monitoring system had improved but did not identify the medicines concerns found by inspectors.
“The service monitoring system had not identified the concerns we found relating to the safe management of medicines.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to prevent medicines being missed or given incorrectly?
- 02How do you now check that medicines are stored at the correct temperature?
- 03How are handwritten medicine administration records checked for accuracy?
- 04How does the quality monitoring system identify and act on medicines problems?
- 05Has the home manager's application to become the registered manager been completed?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three questions were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 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 Glebefields Care Home
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 October 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.