CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Glebelands House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, PPE, testing, visiting, admissions, cleaning and outbreak management. The provider also told inspectors it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated or assessed in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated or assessed in the report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated or assessed in the report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not rated or assessed in the report.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and clean premises during a targeted COVID-19 inspection.
The inspection took place on 4 February 2022 and was announced 24 hours in advance. It was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
Inspectors found staff using protective equipment correctly. The building was very clean, and hand hygiene points were clean, accessible and fully stocked. People and staff who tested positive for COVID-19 were isolating in line with guidance.
The home had an infection prevention and control lead who checked staff practice. Inspectors were assured about visitors, admissions, testing, cleaning, outbreaks and vaccination requirements for staff and visiting professionals.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the five key questions.
Correct use of PPE
Staff were observed putting on and removing protective equipment correctly.
“Staff were observed correctly completing donning (putting on) and doffing (taking off) PPE.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found all areas of the building very clean, with well-stocked hand hygiene points.
“All areas of the building were very clean.” from the report
Clear infection control checks
The home had a named infection control lead who checked whether staff followed the correct procedures.
“There was a named infection prevention and control lead at the service.” from the report
Managing infection risks
People and staff who tested positive for COVID-19 were isolating in line with current guidance.
“People and staff who tested COVID-19 positive were isolating in accordance with current guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What has changed in your infection prevention and control arrangements since the inspection on 4 February 2022?
- 02How do you now manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 or other sickness?
- 03How do you check that staff continue to use PPE and follow infection control procedures correctly?
- 04How are visits managed now, and how would visiting work if there were an infection outbreak?
- 05What action did you take after CQC signposted you to resources to develop your approach?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 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, July 2018
Glebelands House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff vacancies and communication plans still to review.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 and 14 June 2018. It was the first inspection since Greensleeves Homes Trust took over on 27 June 2017. There had been little change to the staff or services.
Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff and health and social care professionals. They observed care, activities and lunch. They checked care plans, medicines, recruitment files, training records, complaints and safety documents.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff knew them well, care was tailored to their needs, and the home was managed openly.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and inspectors saw staff taking steps to reduce risks during care. Staff understood how to report concerns.
“People felt safe living at the service and were protected from risks relating to their care and welfare.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness and respect. They knew people's preferences and supported their dignity, privacy and independence.
“People were treated with care and kindness. Staff showed skill when working with people and it was obvious they knew them well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, wishes and preferences. They were reviewed monthly or when people's needs changed.
“People received support that was individualised to their personal preferences and needs.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could choose from varied activities and could receive one-to-one time if they did not want, or could not join, group activities.
“People had access to a varied activity schedule.” from the report
Open management
People and staff described a friendly, well-managed home. Quality checks were in place and actions were completed promptly.
“All records and audits seen were up to date and details of actions taken to remedy any concerns demonstrated actions were completed promptly.” from the report
Staff vacancies
minorThere were staff vacancies at the time of the inspection. The home used agency staff when needed, although inspectors found there were usually enough staff to provide safe care.
“The registered manager told us there were staff vacancies and they were advertising for new staff.” from the report
Communication needs review
minorThe manager knew about the Accessible Information Standard and planned to review care plans so people's communication needs were recorded in the required way.
“The registered manager was aware of the AIS and had plans to review and update people's care plans, documenting their communication needs in a way that meets the criteria of the standard.” from the report
- 01How many staff vacancies are there now, and how often are agency staff being used?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff know each person's needs, preferences and risks?
- 03Has the planned review of people's communication needs and care plans been completed?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's health, independence or preferences change?
- 05How do residents and relatives help choose meals and activities?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality and safety of the home, covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 July 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 Glebelands House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 June 2017.
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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Wokingham
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 £1,260 a week. 71 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“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.