CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glendale Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. There were enough suitably trained staff, medicines were managed safely, and individual risks were assessed and reviewed.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Best-interest decisions were not always made with others involved in a person's care, and lunchtime alternatives were not always substantial enough to replace the main meal.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and caring. Staff respected privacy and dignity, encouraged independence and welcomed visitors.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and up to date, and people were involved in planning their care. Activities and community access were available, although some people wanted more entertainment.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team used audits, feedback and incident reviews to monitor quality and make changes. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the service was not consistently effective in decision-making and meal choices.
Inspectors visited on 8 and 11 January 2019. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, staff files, audits and other documents.
They found people were safe, treated kindly and given personalised care. Staffing, medicines, cleanliness, risk management and management oversight were generally good. People could raise concerns, and complaints had been investigated and resolved.
The service was rated Requires Improvement for Effective. Best-interest decisions were not always made with other people involved in a person's care. Lunchtime choices did not always include a second substantial main meal. The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in June 2016.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored, administered and monitored safely.
“There were enough staff to support people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as caring. Staff knocked before entering rooms, supported independence and responded promptly when people needed help.
“People were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's routines, preferences, life histories and support needs. People and relatives were involved in care planning.
“Care plans were person centred and contained information about how each person should be supported in all areas of their care and support.” from the report
Good management oversight
The management team carried out regular checks and acted when improvements were needed. Feedback and incidents were reviewed to support changes.
“Comprehensive audits and checks were carried out by the management team to check the quality of the service and to make improvements when required.” from the report
Meal alternatives
needs fixingThe second lunchtime option was not always substantial enough to replace the main meal. Meals could also be served close together for people who chose to get up late.
“Lunchtime meal options did not always give people two main meals to choose from.” from the report
Employment history checks
needs fixingApplication forms asked for only 10 years of employment history, rather than a full history. One checked staff file had a 13-year gap, although the provider changed the form and explored the gap during the inspection.
“One of two staff files we checked had a large gap of 13 years in the staff members employment history.” from the report
Activities
minorSome people wanted more stimulating or varied entertainment. One staff member was completing activities coordinator training to support more personalised activities.
“One person asked that the entertainment be more stimulating, they missed attending her book club and enjoyed jazz music.” from the report
- 01How are best-interest decisions now made with relatives and relevant health or social care professionals?
- 02How do you make sure best-interest decision-making is fully recorded?
- 03What changes have been made to ensure there are two substantial main meal choices at lunchtime?
- 04How do you support people who want more varied or stimulating activities?
- 05Have all staff employment histories been checked in full since the inspection?
This inspection looked at all five key questions and the overall rating; the overall Good rating carried forward from the previous Good inspection in June 2016, with Effective rated Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 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 Lodge
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 January 2011.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.