CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glen Tanar Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitor screening, safe admissions, testing, protective equipment, cleaning and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed as a separate quality question in this targeted inspection, although infection control policies, audits and contingency planning were reviewed.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection controls and safe COVID-19 arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 13 April 2021. It checked how well the home was preventing and controlling infection during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found that visitors were screened, people were admitted after negative COVID-19 tests, and new residents were supported to self-isolate for up to 14 days. Staff used protective equipment correctly and there were plentiful supplies.
The home was clean and hygienic. Staff followed enhanced cleaning arrangements, infection control training had been provided, and the provider had up-to-date policies and plans for managing outbreaks.
The service was inspected but not rated. This visit did not give an overall quality rating. It looked only at infection prevention and control arrangements.
Visitor infection checks
Visitors were screened on entry with health and temperature checks. Protective equipment and lateral flow testing were provided.
“The registered manager had introduced a screening process for visitors when entering the building, which included health and temperature checks” from the report
Safe admissions
New residents were admitted after a negative COVID-19 test and were supported to self-isolate for up to 14 days. Their health and wellbeing was monitored.
“People were only admitted following a negative COVID-19 test result and supported to self-isolate for up to 14 days following admission” from the report
Clean and hygienic home
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Staff followed an enhanced cleaning schedule and there was good ventilation.
“The home had a good level of cleanliness and was hygienic throughout.” from the report
Protective equipment and staffing
There were plentiful supplies of protective equipment, staff used it appropriately, and staffing arrangements supported continuity if there was a shortage.
“There were sufficient staff to provide continuity of support should there be a staff shortage.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened, tested and given protective equipment before entering?
- 02What happens now when someone is admitted, including testing and any period of self-isolation?
- 03How often are infection control procedures and cleaning arrangements checked and updated?
- 04How would you maintain staffing and continuity of care if there were staff shortages?
- 05How are activities and contact with relatives managed if infection risks increase?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection of all five quality areas and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 April 2021 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, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 May 2019. One inspector reviewed records, medicines, staffing, training, meals and the building. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, respected and listened to. Inspectors saw kind care, suitable staffing, safe medicines practice and care plans that reflected people's needs.
The home had improved since its previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement. Earlier concerns about care plans, monitoring food and fluids, medicines used when required, fire safety, infection control and quality checks had been addressed. The home was no longer in breach of the regulations mentioned in the previous report.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind, attentive and compassionate. Inspectors observed polite and respectful interactions.
“People told us they were happy with the care provided for them and staff were caring and compassionate.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care files contained detailed information about each person's needs, preferences and routines. Staff could explain how they supported individuals.
“Care files were person-centred and individualised documents reflecting each person's assessment of needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were recorded clearly and staff had training and competency checks. Protocols for medicines given when required had been introduced.
“Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines when they should.” from the report
Improvements made
The home had acted on concerns from the previous inspection. Inspectors found it was no longer in breach of the regulations mentioned previously.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider is no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
People's views included
People and relatives were asked for their views through surveys, care reviews and meetings. People said they felt consulted and listened to.
“The provider provided an open culture and encouraged people to provide their views about how the service was run.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you keep the improvements made since the previous inspection under review?
- 02How do you assess and monitor my relative's food and fluid intake if they are at nutritional risk?
- 03How often are staff medicines training and competency checks completed?
- 04How would you support my relative's personal preferences, routines, activities and independence?
- 05How are people's views and any complaints recorded and acted on?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; people were able to speak with the inspector, so SOFI was not used. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 May 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 Glen Tanar Rest Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 2010.
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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of Blackpool
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 £1,250 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.