CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Glenarie Manor Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Fire safety arrangements and the smoking room needed improvement. Medicine administration times were not recorded, although medicines were administered appropriately on the inspection day.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were involved in decisions about their care, received enough food and drink, and were supported by health and social care professionals. There were gaps in some staff training, which were being addressed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw warm, friendly relationships between staff and people. People's independence, privacy, personal preferences and diversity were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's histories, needs and wishes. People had activities, support with appointments and freedom to access the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive and open culture, regular staff meetings and quality checks. Managers understood people's needs and had action plans for identified improvements.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Glenarie Manor Nursing Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found improvements were needed in fire safety, smoking facilities and medicines management.
Inspectors visited on 9 July 2018 without telling the home in advance. They spoke with 11 people, managers and a nurse. They checked care records, medicines, staff recruitment and training, staffing levels and other management records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and liked the staff. The home was clean and had enough staff. Care was personalised, people were supported with their mental health and healthcare, and they could make everyday choices and go into the community.
The main problems were in the Safe area. Fire safety work was still under way, the smoking room had poor ventilation and smoking debris, and medicine administration times were not recorded. The home had also identified medicine errors and missing signatures.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were each rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, so the home was generally providing good care but had important safety improvements to complete.
Kind relationships
People spoke highly of staff. Inspectors saw natural, warm interactions and found that staff knew people well.
“The atmosphere at the home was warm, homely and relaxed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's histories, preferences, needs and risks. This helped staff provide support suited to each person.
“People's care records contained information about people's needs and risks and how to support them effectively.” from the report
Choice and independence
People could make everyday choices, keep their own bedroom keys and go out into the community without restrictions.
“People were able to come and go from the home as they pleased.” from the report
Mental health support
The home worked with mental health and other health professionals to support people's wellbeing.
“Everyone's records however showed that they received support from a range of health and social care professionals in respect of their mental health.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found safe recruitment procedures and enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.
“Staff were recruited safely and the number of staff on duty was sufficient to meet people's needs.” from the report
Fire safety
seriousThe fire risk assessment identified improvements that were needed. An action plan was in place, but the work was not yet complete during the inspection.
“Although the home was clean and well-maintained, improvements to the home's fire safety arrangements home needed to be made.” from the report
Smoking room
seriousThe smoking room had inadequate ventilation and smoking debris. The provider later confirmed that work to install an extractor fan was being organised.
“We visited this room and saw that the ventilation in the smoke room was inadequate.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousStaff did not record when medicines were given. This meant they could not confirm that medicines needing specific timings or gaps between doses were given safely.
“The time at which medicines were administered was not recorded.” from the report
Staff training
needs fixingSome staff training was incomplete. The manager had changed training provider and was arranging for staff to complete the new courses.
“There were gaps in staff training. We spoke with the manager about this.” from the report
Personal hygiene prompts
needs fixingA couple of people looked unkempt because staff had not always prompted them with personal hygiene. The manager acted during the inspection.
“A couple of people looked dishevelled and unkempt.” from the report
- 01Has the fire safety action plan been fully completed, and can you show us what work was done?
- 02Has the smoking room's ventilation been improved, and how is smoking debris now managed?
- 03How do you record the exact time each medicine is given, especially medicines needing set intervals between doses?
- 04Have all staff completed the training courses that were outstanding at the inspection?
- 05How do staff make sure people who need prompting receive help with personal hygiene?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 August 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 Glenarie Manor Nursing Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 April 2018.
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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Liverpool
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. 83 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“All in all Kama b cared for the owner really well, every aspect of her care was of the highest standard.”
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.