CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Glencoe Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems and detailed risk assessments, including risks linked to COVID-19.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, induction and supervision. People received support with healthcare, food, drinks, oral hygiene and consent in line with their needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not looked at during this focused inspection. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not looked at during this focused inspection. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management had better oversight, regular audits and clearer responsibilities. Staff and families described communication with the management as good.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good after improvements; inspectors found safe infection controls, effective care and stronger management.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 22 April 2021. One inspector spoke with six people, the registered manager and four staff members. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, training information and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, suitable infection control measures and care records that reflected people's needs. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care.
The previous rating, published in June 2019, was Requires Improvement and included a breach of Regulation 17. The home had completed an action plan. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and the home was no longer in breach. Caring and Responsive were not looked at during this inspection, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
Infection control
The home had PPE, cleaning procedures, visitor controls, testing arrangements and COVID-19 policies in place.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Agency staff were not being used, and staff covered absences during the pandemic.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff employed and on duty to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records described people's needs, preferences and risks. Staff knew people well and supported them in ways that promoted independence.
“Records of people's care were individualised and reflected each person's needs and preferences.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home improved its staff induction, supervision and quality checks. It was no longer in breach of Regulation 17.
“Enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 17.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are your quality audits carried out now, and what happens when they identify a problem?
- 02How do you make sure new staff complete their induction and receive regular supervision?
- 03How do you assess and review the risks for a person living with dementia, including risks linked to distress or anxiety?
- 04What are your current visiting arrangements, and how do you support contact with family if visits are restricted?
- 05How do you make sure people receive the right food, drinks and support for their individual dietary needs?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 May 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, June 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care, but staff support and quality checks were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 May 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with seven people, four relatives and staff. They reviewed care and medicine records for all 19 people living there, and checked the building, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for safety, caring and responsiveness. People said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staff knew people well, there were enough staff, medicines were generally managed safely, and care plans gave staff useful information.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for effectiveness and leadership. Staff supervision and induction records were incomplete. Some consent records were not legally sound, activities were not always suited to people's interests, and quality checks had failed to identify problems. The overall rating stayed at Requires Improvement, as it had been at the previous inspection.
Kind, familiar care
Staff knew people well, understood their preferences and health needs, and created a warm atmosphere.
“Staff showed a true fondness for the people they cared for and there was a warm, friendly and welcoming atmosphere.” from the report
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Risks were assessed, the environment was maintained and staff recruitment checks were completed.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care records
Care plans described people's needs, preferences and routines. Daily notes were informative and care records were updated when needs changed.
“Care plans described peoples individual needs, preferences and routines.” from the report
Action after earlier concerns
The provider had improved several areas identified at the previous inspection, including emergency evacuation plans, the building and medicine systems.
“At this inspection the provider had taken action to address the concerns found at the last inspection.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's audits did not identify the problems found during the inspection. This was a continued breach of Regulation 17.
“The lack of robust quality assurance systems meant the provider did not have effective oversight of the service.” from the report
Incomplete staff supervision and induction records
needs fixingStaff did not receive supervision in line with the home's policy, and induction arrangements were not consistently recorded.
“Staff were not provided with supervision in accordance with the policy held at the service.” from the report
Consent records
needs fixingSome people signed consent forms for others without a recorded capacity assessment or evidence that they had legal authority to do so.
“The service did not have any record of any appointed lasting power of attorneys (LPAs').” from the report
Activities not always personal
minorThe home provided music, religious visits and outings, but did not clearly show that activities reflected everyone's interests and backgrounds.
“The activities available were not always relevant to everyone living at Glencoe.” from the report
Mattress settings
needs fixingTwo pressure-relieving mattresses had incorrect settings. The manager said staff would record the actual settings during checks.
“However, the settings for two mattresses were not correct.” from the report
- 01How are staff supervision sessions and new staff inductions now recorded and checked?
- 02How do you check that consent forms are signed by the person or by someone with the correct legal authority?
- 03How are pressure-relieving mattress settings checked and recorded each day?
- 04How do you make sure activities reflect each resident's background, interests and choices?
- 05What changes have you made to the quality assurance system since this inspection?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, following the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 June 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 Glencoe Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2013.
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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.