CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glenbank Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. This included visitor screening, use of PPE, testing, hygiene, social distancing and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Glenbank Care Home: inspectors were assured about infection control, but the service was not rated.
This was a targeted inspection on 21 January 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control measures, including visitors, testing, protective equipment, hygiene and outbreak planning.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were screened, handwashing facilities were available and visiting could take place safely in a visitors' pod. They also found arrangements to reduce infection risks among staff.
The home had a contingency plan for an outbreak and had prepared a separate lounge for people who needed to isolate. The overall service, and the Safe question, were inspected but not rated.
Safe visiting
The home had a visitors' pod, screening on entry and an extra staff member on duty during visits.
“The home had purchased a visitors' pod which meant people could visit their loved ones in a safe and secure environment.” from the report
Staff infection controls
Staff took separate breaks, agreed not to share cars and agreed not to work elsewhere to reduce infection risks.
“Staff took separate breaks and had signed a no car share policy to help minimize the risk of spreading any infection.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had a contingency plan and had prepared part of the building as a separate lounge if an outbreak occurred.
“A clear contingency plan was in place in the event of an outbreak and the need for some people who used the service to isolate.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, accessing testing and keeping its infection prevention policy up to date.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors screened and supported to visit safely now?
- 02How would you separate people who need to isolate during an outbreak?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested, and how are test results managed?
- 04How do staff avoid infection risks linked to working elsewhere or sharing transport?
- 05When was the infection prevention and control policy last reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures, with Safe inspected but not rated; it did not assess the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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, April 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some drinks records were incomplete.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 19 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care files, staff records, training records, safety records, meeting minutes and audits.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines systems, up-to-date care plans, trained staff and respectful care.
Care was tailored to people's likes, dislikes and routines. There were activities, outings and plans for end of life care. The home had systems for complaints and quality checks, although inspectors found that drinks given between recorded doses were not always recorded for people who needed thickened fluids.
The overall Good rating means inspectors judged the service to be meeting the required standards in the areas checked. The previous inspection, on 22 September 2015, also rated the home Good.
Consistent staffing
Inspectors found staffing levels were consistent and flexible. The home rarely used agency staff and had a reliable core of long-term staff.
“Staffing levels were consistent and flexible and staff recruitment was robust.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff treating people with patience, dignity and kindness. People appeared happy and content.
“We observed care throughout the day and saw that staff were respectful, friendly and kind at all times.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans included people's preferences, history, relationships, routines and support needs. They were reviewed regularly.
“Care plans were person-centred and included information about people's likes and dislikes, people in their lives, support needed with relationships and links to their past.” from the report
Activities and outings
People could choose from activities at the home and trips into the local area, including church visits, exercise and film shows.
“There were two activities coordinators and, in addition, other activities were brought in from external companies.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home carried out several audits and used people's views to make changes to menus, outings and activities.
“All audits included actions to address any shortfalls and were analysed for patterns and trends to inform continual improvement to service delivery.” from the report
Incomplete thickened-drink records
needs fixingDrinks given between scheduled recorded doses were not being recorded for some people who needed thickened fluids. Inspectors discussed this with the home, and fluid charts were introduced immediately.
“However, drinks given in between by care staff were not recorded.” from the report
Low attendance at meetings
minorAttendance at residents' and relatives' meetings had been poor. The home planned to hold meetings quarterly and give families more notice.
“Attendance had been poor and the management had decided to hold the meetings quarterly in future and publicise dates well in advance to ensure families had lots of notice.” from the report
- 01How do you now record every drink for people who need thickened fluids?
- 02Were the fluid charts introduced during the inspection kept in place, and are they checked regularly?
- 03How are residents and relatives encouraged to attend meetings and have their views acted on?
- 04How often are care plans reviewed with the person and their relatives?
- 05What has changed at the home since the March 2018 inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 April 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 Glenbank Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Bolton
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. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“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.