CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glendon House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control arrangements, with some resources suggested for further development.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 04 March 2021. It checked the home's infection prevention and control arrangements during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were screened, PPE was used safely, social distancing and hygiene measures were followed, and people and staff were tested for COVID-19. They were also assured that the home could prevent and manage outbreaks.
The home supported people to keep in touch with relatives through outdoor visits, a cabin, window visits, telephone calls and video calls. The inspection did not give a rating for the service or for the Safe question.
Visitor safety
Visitors had their temperature checked, used hand sanitiser and wore PPE before entering. Clear signs explained symptoms, PPE and social distancing.
“All visitors had their temperature taken and asked to sanitise their hands prior to entering the home.” from the report
Safe PPE and testing
Staff were observed wearing the correct PPE. People living at the home and staff were tested at the intervals set out in government guidance.
“People living in the service and staff were tested for COVID-19 at the intervals stipulated by the government's testing guidelines.” from the report
Family contact
The home provided several ways for people to stay in touch with relatives, including outdoor visits, a cabin, window visits, telephone calls and video calls.
“People were supported to maintain contact with their relatives.” from the report
Staff arrival arrangements
Staff used a separate entrance and changed into uniform and PPE before entering the main home.
“This separate area allowed for staff to change into their uniform and put on their PPE before entering the home.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorThe report says the provider was directed to resources to develop its approach. It does not explain what specific improvement was needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made since the March 2021 inspection to develop your infection prevention and control approach?
- 02How do you currently check visitors for infection risks and make sure they use PPE safely?
- 03How often are people living here and staff tested, and what happens if there is a positive result?
- 04How can residents currently keep in touch with relatives, including relatives who cannot visit in person?
- 05How do you prevent and manage an infection outbreak in the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not rate the overall service or the Effective, Caring, Responsive or Well-led questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 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 2018
Glendon House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a small gap in how residents' views were collected.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 24 April 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, a relative, visitors and staff. They observed care and reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, good support with food and healthcare, and care that respected people's dignity, privacy and choices.
People had personalised care records that were reviewed when their needs changed. There were activities, unrestricted visiting and support for family relationships. The home had clear leadership and quality checks, although a survey for people living in the home had not yet been introduced.
Safe medicines
Inspectors checked medicines for three people and found the records complete and the stock matched the records. Staff had training and their practice was checked.
“People's medicines were stored, administered and managed in a safe way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were seen offering choice, protecting privacy and helping people remain independent. Care was adapted to people's communication and personal needs.
“People were cared for in a way that upheld their dignity and maintained their privacy.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People could join a range of activities and choose whether to take part. Visitors could come without restrictions and were made welcome.
“There were no restrictions about when people could have their relatives or friends visit.” from the report
Good leadership and checks
Managers were visible and approachable. The home used several audits and checks to monitor care and follow up actions.
“There were robust quality monitoring procedures in place.” from the report
Residents' views survey not yet in place
minorRelatives were invited to complete an annual quality survey, but inspectors found no equivalent survey for people living in the home. Managers said they planned to introduce one.
“There was not a quality survey in place for people who lived in the home.” from the report
- 01Have you introduced the planned quality survey for people living in the home, and how do you act on the results?
- 02How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care plan?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels continue to match residents' changing needs?
- 04How are medicines checked, and how are each person's preferences for taking them recorded?
- 05What activities are available for people with dementia, and how are their individual interests included?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering the whole service and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 June 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 Glendon House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 December 2017.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.