CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glen Pat Homes
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People had risk assessments, medicines were managed safely and infection controls were good. However, staffing levels were not always sufficient, especially at night, and the home breached the staffing regulation.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff were trained, supported people's health needs and worked with other professionals. The building did not fully meet people's needs, including the needs of one person with limited mobility, and one health action plan lacked important information.
- Caring?
- Good
- No separate rating was given for Caring in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care had become more personalised. People could choose individual outings and activities, and staff supported people to develop independence and follow their interests.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits, records and oversight had improved, including through a new electronic recording system. However, the provider had not identified the staffing risk at night and had failed to notify CQC about one incident when required.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Glen Pat Homes is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found better personalised care but unsafe staffing levels and unsuitable facilities.
Inspectors visited the care home without notice on 18 November 2021 and visited the supported living service on 19 November 2021 after giving one day's notice. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
People said they felt safe and liked the staff. Medicines were managed safely, infection controls were good, and people were supported with health appointments, food and daily activities. Care had become more person-centred, with more individual outings and support for independence.
The care home had been short staffed, including at night. Inspectors also found that the building needed refurbishment and that there was no suitable bathroom for one person with limited mobility. The provider increased staffing immediately and said it would arrange building work.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Responsive improved to Good. The provider was no longer in breach of the previous regulations about safe care and treatment and governance, but breached the staffing regulation.
Safer risk and medicines management
Risk assessments had improved and medicines were being given and recorded safely. The provider had also addressed earlier problems with bedrails and insulin administration.
“Medicines administration records showed that people were receiving their prescribed medicines on time and staff were signing they had given it as required.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home had moved away from a timetable of group activities. People were supported to go out individually and choose activities such as swimming, shopping and walking.
“The practice of timetabled group activities had ceased.” from the report
Communication support
The service employed staff who could use British Sign Language and used interpreters to support deaf people and staff. Hearing staff also used written notes when needed.
“The provider employs deaf staff who can use BSL to communicate with people.” from the report
Infection prevention
The home was clean and had screening, testing, cleaning and protective equipment arrangements to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection.
“We observed staff wearing PPE appropriately.” from the report
Improved oversight
The provider had introduced regular checks and an electronic recording system. This gave the manager better information about care and medicines.
“The provider had invested in a new electronic recording system which had improved the quality of recording.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousThe care home was short staffed, and some people may not have received all their planned one-to-one time. Weekend night arrangements did not properly assess how people would be kept safe during an emergency.
“The care home was short staffed at the time of the inspection and we saw from the staff roster that some staff had been working 60 hours in a week as well as sleeping in duties.” from the report
Building and accessibility
needs fixingThe building needed repair and redecoration. One person with limited mobility could not safely access suitable bathing facilities, the kitchen, bathrooms or garden.
“There were no suitable bath or shower facilities for a person with limited mobility whose mobility had deteriorated.” from the report
PPE and lip reading
needs fixingAt the inspection, hearing staff did not have transparent masks or visors, making communication harder for deaf people who needed to lip read. The provider said transparent masks were ordered after this was raised.
“We saw that staff were not provided with transparent masks/visors to enable deaf colleagues and people living in the service to lip read.” from the report
Incident reporting
minorThe provider had not notified CQC about one incident that it was legally required to report. Other incidents had been reported appropriately.
“The provider had failed to notify CQC about one incident they were required by law to notify.” from the report
- 01What are the current staffing numbers on each shift, including weekend nights?
- 02How do you make sure every person receives their allocated one-to-one hours?
- 03What work has been completed, or is scheduled, to provide suitable bathing facilities and improve wheelchair access?
- 04Are transparent masks or visors now available whenever deaf people need to lip read?
- 05What changes have been made to ensure all incidents that must be reported to CQC are notified on time?
This was a focused inspection of the care home and supported living service after the previous Requires Improvement rating, covering Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not separately rated in the report. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 January 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, April 2020
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but serious gaps in risk assessments, medicines, health information and management checks.
This was a planned inspection on 13 and 14 February 2020. Inspectors visited the care home and the supported living service. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
People were generally happy and had good relationships with staff. Inspectors rated caring as Good. The home was clean and safe overall, and staff supported people to access health services, specialist help and activities.
However, important information about people's health conditions, risks, medicines and fluid needs was missing or conflicting. The care home also relied too much on group activities, with limited chances for people to go out individually and follow their own interests.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, effective, responsive and well-led were all Requires Improvement. Caring remained Good, but the overall rating had fallen from Good at the previous inspection, published on 11 August 2017.
Kind relationships
People generally felt well cared for and comfortable with staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly and respectfully.
“We observed staff acting in a kind and enthusiastic way to people during the inspection and people clearly felt confident with staff.” from the report
Support with healthcare
People attended regular health appointments and were supported to see specialist services. Staff also helped people look after glasses and hearing aids.
“Records showed that people saw a dentist, optician and chiropodist regularly and staff supported them to see specialists.” from the report
Communication support
The home employed deaf staff and used interpreters. Staff also had deaf awareness and Makaton training to support people's communication.
“The provider employs deaf staff who can use British Sign Language to communicate with people.” from the report
Independence in supported living
People in supported living were helped to shop, cook, pursue interests and work towards personal goals.
“People in the supported living service told us they were supported to be as independent as possible including shopping for their own food, cooking and other daily living tasks.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the care home clean. Staff had personal protective equipment for personal care, although some infection control training was overdue at the inspection.
“The care home was clean.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
seriousThere were no risk assessments in the supported living service despite serious risks. Other records, including information about bedrails, contained gaps or conflicting instructions.
“There were no risk assessments in place at the supported living service.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousStaff did not always have clear information about why medicines were prescribed or when to give medicines needed only sometimes. There was no written evidence that staff had been assessed as competent to administer medicines.
“There was no written evidence that staff had been assessed as competent to administer medicines.” from the report
Unclear health information
seriousCare records did not always explain serious health conditions, warning signs or the care required. Conflicting instructions about one person's fluid intake created a risk of too much or too little fluid.
“Three staff gave three different responses about this person's fluid intake requirements.” from the report
Limited individual choice
needs fixingCare home activities were often organised as daily group outings. Inspectors found limited opportunities for people to go out alone and follow their own interests with staff support.
“At the care home activities tended to be daily group activities using dial-a-ride services with little choice for people to go out on their own” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe provider's audits had not identified the problems with risks, medicines and care records. Important information was spread across several documents and was not always accurate or up to date.
“This lack of effective systems to ensure care plan records were fully accurate and up to date meant people could be at risk of their needs not being fully met” from the report
Limited involvement in care plans
needs fixingThere was no evidence that people in the care home had been involved in preparing or reviewing their care plans. Some cultural and religious decisions were also not recorded clearly.
“There was no evidence of people in the care home having any involvement in their care plans” from the report
- 01What has changed in the risk assessments for serious health, violence, sexual and other safety risks in the supported living service?
- 02How do you now record why each medicine is prescribed, when PRN medicines should be given and which staff are competent to administer them?
- 03How do you make sure staff have accurate, consistent information about each person's health conditions, warning signs and fluid requirements?
- 04What individual activities and outings can my relative choose, rather than joining a planned group activity?
- 05What checks now confirm that care plans, risk records, fluid charts and medicines records are complete and up to date?
This inspection covered the care home and personal care in the supported living service; CQC did not regulate the supported living building itself. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 April 2020 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 Glen Pat Homes
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 April 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Enfield
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 £1,260 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.