CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glendale Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that people were protected by infection prevention and control systems. They found effective arrangements for visitors, PPE, testing, social distancing, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed as a separate rated area in this targeted inspection, although inspectors described strong leadership in relation to PPE and testing.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, safe visiting arrangements and good preparation for COVID-19 risks.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 27 August 2020. Inspectors looked only at infection prevention and control measures as part of a review during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections from spreading. This included the use of personal protective equipment, testing, social distancing, shielding, cleaning and hygiene measures.
The home had created indoor and outdoor visiting areas with screens and controlled routes. It also paused new admissions until people could be tested and the risks to current residents had been reduced.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a standard overall quality rating or ratings for all five areas of care.
Safe visiting
The home provided several indoor and outdoor visiting spaces. Screens and separate entry and exit routes helped support safer visits and social distancing.
“Two indoor and three outdoor spaces had been adapted to allow visiting to happen safely.” from the report
Careful admissions
New admissions were paused until the risks to people already living in the home had been reduced. Admissions restarted only when testing before moving in was possible.
“Admissions only resumed once people were able to be tested for Covid-19 before moving to the service.” from the report
Clear leadership
Managers set clear expectations for staff about PPE and regular testing.
“The Registered Manager and Deputy Manager demonstrated strong leadership and clear expectations of the standards they expected staff to maintain with regards to Personal Protective Equipment and routine testing.” from the report
Preparation for outbreaks
The home had employed extra staff, moved the laundry to another building and bought specialist equipment to prepare for a possible rise in infections.
“Proactive measures had been taken to prepare for any increase in Covid-19 infections in the local community.” from the report
Further development needed
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection control approach. The report does not say what specific improvement was needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection control changes have been made since the inspection in August 2020?
- 02What arrangements are now used for indoor and outdoor visits?
- 03How are visitors, residents and staff tested, and how are the results managed?
- 04What did the resources signposted by inspectors help the home to develop?
- 05How does the home prepare for and manage a possible infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 September 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.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Glendale Court was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with improvements needed to medicines storage and some care plans.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 4 and 6 June 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with 14 people living in the home, seven relatives, eight staff members and a visiting health professional. They also reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and happy. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good infection control, suitable training and care that respected people's choices, privacy and dignity.
There were some areas to improve. Medicines were stored securely but not in line with best practice. Some 'as required' medicines did not have clear instructions, although these were put in place during the inspection. Some care plans did not give enough detail about people's personal care wishes. The inspectors made recommendations rather than finding legal breaches.
The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 1 December 2016. This inspection was planned because of that previous rating. CQC said it would continue to monitor information and could inspect sooner if concerns arose.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed patient, respectful interactions and found that staff knew people's interests and preferences.
“We observed people were treated with kindness and compassion by staff.” from the report
People's choices respected
People could make choices about meals, daily routines, activities and where they spent their time. Staff promoted privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were involved with their care and support and were encouraged to make decisions about their day to day care and routines where possible.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and protect them from risks. Recruitment checks included references and police checks before staff started.
“During the inspection we saw there were enough staff to ensure people had access to care that met their needs and protected them from risks.” from the report
Good health and food support
People were offered a choice of food and drink, with extra support where needed. Staff involved specialist professionals when there were concerns about nutrition, swallowing or health.
“People were offered a choice of food and drink and spoke highly of the quality and variety of the meals.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff had confidence in the management. The home used audits, feedback and incident reviews to monitor quality and improve care.
“The provider had systems and procedures to monitor and assess the quality and safety of their service.” from the report
Medicines storage
needs fixingMedicines were locked away and people received them as prescribed, but the storage arrangements did not meet best practice. Inspectors recommended that the provider review current clinical guidance.
“Although medicines were locked away and stored securely, medicines storage did not meet best practice guidelines.” from the report
Some medicines instructions
needs fixingSome medicines taken when needed did not initially have clear instructions about when and how often they could be given. The home put protocols in place before the inspection ended.
“However, there were no protocols were in place to guide staff about when people may take these medicines and how often they could be taken.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain in enough detail how staff should provide personal care in line with a person's wishes and preferences. Inspectors recommended that the provider review these plans.
“Not all care plans we looked at were as detailed as they could be.” from the report
Range of activities
minorThe home offered organised activities and outside entertainment, but some people said there was not enough to do. Inspectors also recorded that activities had recently improved.
“Some people told us they wanted more activities provided for them.” from the report
- 01How are medicines stored now, and when was this last checked against current clinical guidance?
- 02How do you make sure instructions for medicines taken when needed are clear and up to date?
- 03How are each person's personal care wishes and preferences recorded in their care plan?
- 04What activities are currently available, and how do you respond when people want more to do?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns and find out what action has been taken?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 July 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 Glendale Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 December 2014.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.