CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glendale Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective infection control, suitable staffing, regularly reviewed risk assessments and safe medicines management. A medicines trolley lock had broken, but staff kept the trolley in a locked room while waiting for a replacement.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not directly assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not directly assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not directly assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective audits, open communication, supportive leadership and clear action to address earlier failings. Staff, relatives and other professionals were able to raise concerns and said they felt listened to.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and well-managed support, with clear improvement since the previous inspection.
This was a focused inspection on 26 April 2021. Inspectors checked whether the home had acted on its previous improvement plan, looked at infection control, and reviewed records and staff training. They spoke with people living in the home, staff, relatives and visiting professionals.
The home was found to be safe and well-led. Inspectors found clean and safe surroundings, suitable staffing, thorough risk assessments, safe medicines systems and good infection control. Care was described as person-centred and responsive to people's needs.
The previous inspection had rated the service Requires Improvement, with the well-led area rated Inadequate and several legal breaches. At this inspection, the inspectors found enough improvement and said the home was no longer in breach of those regulations.
This was a focused inspection. Only Safe and Well-led were directly assessed. The ratings for the other areas were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection when calculating the overall Good rating.
Clean and safe home
The home was clean, inviting and safe. Infection control systems were in place and inspectors were assured that the home could prevent and manage infections.
“Every area of the home was clean, with effective systems in place to ensure this good standard was maintained.” from the report
Person-centred care
Staff knew people well and adapted support to their needs. Inspectors saw kind and timely care, including support with personal care.
“People received care that was well coordinated, person centred and met their varying needs.” from the report
Good support for people with dementia
Staff received extra training and used distraction and positive engagement when people were distressed. This helped reduce the use of some medicines and contributed to fewer falls.
“As a result, many of the medicines used to reduce distressed behaviours had been stopped.” from the report
Improved leadership
The provider and manager had acted on the previous inspection findings. Audits and reviews were being used to identify and fix problems.
“The registered manager had robust audits in place to ensure that previous failings did not reoccur.” from the report
Family contact
The home offered different ways for people to stay in contact with relatives during the pandemic, including window visits, virtual visits and visits in line with government guidance.
“The provider and registered manager had ensured there were a variety of different visiting or contact options available to meet individuals and their families, individual needs.” from the report
Medicines trolley lock
minorThe medicines trolley lock had broken. Staff reduced the risk by keeping the trolley in a locked room while waiting for a replacement, but families may want to check that this has now been repaired.
“Staff had identified the medicines trolley lock had broken and registered manager completed a risk assessment and action plan around this while waiting for a replacement.” from the report
- 01Has the medicines trolley lock now been replaced, and how are medicines kept secure when equipment fails?
- 02How will you assess and support my relative's dementia needs if they become distressed or walk with purpose?
- 03What staffing levels are normally in place, and what is the plan if staff are absent or test positive for COVID-19?
- 04How will my family be kept informed about changes to care, visiting arrangements and any incidents?
- 05Which improvements from the previous inspection are being checked through regular audits?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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, March 2020
Glendale Residential Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but unsafe surroundings and inadequate leadership.
This was an unannounced inspection by two inspectors on 3 February 2020. They spoke with five people, one relative, six staff and two health and social care professionals. They observed care and activities and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
People were treated kindly and respectfully. Care plans, medicines, nutrition, health care access and activities had improved. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good.
The home was not clean. Exposed hot water pipes, a damaged bath seat and loose fixtures created safety risks. There were also not enough cleaning staff. The ratings for Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement and Inadequate.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. The home had the same overall rating at the previous inspection. After the visit, immediate action was taken to reduce some environmental risks and arrange a deep clean. CQC said it would monitor progress and return.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with compassion. People were supported with privacy, dignity, independence and daily choices.
“Staff were observed to treat people with kindness and compassion in all interactions.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored and managed safely. Reviews were carried out, including for medicines used to manage distress.
“Medicines were managed and stored safely, and regular audits took place.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans and one-page profiles gave staff information about people's needs, preferences and routines. Keyworkers also provided additional support.
“The manager had used one-page profiles to inform staff of people's needs and preferences” from the report
Improved activities
People had access to activities inside and outside the home. Inspectors found improvement since the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we found people had good access to various activities in and outside the service.” from the report
Better food and dining
The dining layout and experience had improved. Staff monitored people's nutrition and followed professional guidance for people at risk of choking or malnutrition.
“People and relatives told us the food was tasty.” from the report
Poor cleanliness
seriousInspectors found the environment in a poor state of cleanliness, including mould in some window frames. This created an infection risk.
“On the first day of inspection we found that the service was in a poor state of cleanliness.” from the report
Environmental safety risks
seriousExposed hot water pipes could have caused burns, while a damaged bath seat and loose fixtures could have caused injuries. Some risks had not been identified by checks.
“Pipes were hot to touch, and this placed people at risk of burns if they fell against the pipes.” from the report
Weak provider oversight
seriousThe provider had not learned from previous inspections. Its governance systems did not identify or resolve all environmental risks.
“The directors had failed to learn lessons from previous inspections about the importance of maintaining and safe and clean environment for people.” from the report
Insufficient cleaning staff
seriousThere were no cleaning staff available while recruitment was under way, and care staff could not keep up with cleaning alongside their care duties.
“The service did not have cleaning staff and the environment was unclean.” from the report
- 01What work has been completed to cover all exposed hot water pipes, and how are you checking that they remain safe?
- 02What cleaning arrangements are now in place, and how do you monitor cleanliness and infection risks each day?
- 03How have the damaged bath seat, loose fixtures and other environmental risks been repaired and checked?
- 04What changes have the provider and directors made to learn from the previous inspection and improve oversight?
- 05How will you make sure there are enough competent staff to maintain the environment as well as provide care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at all five key questions and both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 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.
Every inspection of Glendale Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Glendale Residential Care Home →
- March 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Glendale Residential Care Home →
- February 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 January 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.