CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Gleneagle House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe and staff followed safeguarding and recruitment procedures. Inspectors found missing records for smoking risks, some medicines guidance and fire evacuation support, which the manager said were completed after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and supported people with health appointments, meals and independence. Mental health awareness training had not yet been provided, but it was arranged after the inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff listened to them, respected their privacy and supported their choices. Staff helped people develop skills, maintain relationships and live as independently as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and reflected people's health and social care needs. People had regular reviews, could raise concerns and received support with community activities, advocacy and work.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, staff and a healthcare professional described the management as supportive and approachable. Audits and meetings were used to identify and make improvements.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Sophia Maria House was rated Good; inspectors found caring, well-managed support, with several safety records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 November 2018. Inspectors spoke with four people living at the home, the manager and staff, and one healthcare professional. They reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment, training, incidents and management checks.
The home supports up to seven women with mental health needs. All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People were supported to make choices, build independence, access healthcare and maintain relationships.
Inspectors found some gaps in safety records. These included missing smoking risk assessments, missing medicines guidance and incomplete fire evacuation information. The manager said these were corrected immediately after the inspection. Staff also had not yet received mental health awareness training, but this was arranged after the visit.
The Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection in June 2016. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Respectful care
People said staff listened to them, respected their privacy and supported their decisions about daily life.
“[Staff] always knock on my door and wait until I tell them to come in” from the report
Building independence
The home supported people to cook, clean, manage money, use the community and learn skills for more independent living.
“Systems were in place to enhance people's independence and to help them to learn new skills where possible.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans gave staff clear information about people's health, safety, daily support and changing needs.
“People's care plans were comprehensive and provided details on the support people required to be safe.” from the report
Responsive management
The manager used audits, meetings and feedback to identify improvements and acted on issues raised.
“Records showed that any improvements identified were actioned as necessary” from the report
Staffing for activities
needs fixingThree of the four people spoken to said there were not enough staff during the day to support activities and outings. Inspectors found staffing was assessed and had recently been increased, but this is still worth checking.
“Three out of four people that we spoke to told us there were not enough staff to support them with their activities during the day.” from the report
Incomplete safety records
seriousThere were no risk assessments for people who smoked, and fire evacuation plans did not explain the support people needed to leave safely. The manager said these records were updated after the inspection.
“However, we found that there were no risk assessments in place for people who smoked.” from the report
Medicines guidance
seriousStaff knew what to do when medicines were missed or given occasionally, but this was not written in guidance for them. The manager said protocols were put in place after the inspection.
“Although staff were aware of the actions they had to take if people missed their medicines or when to administer the medicines that were not given regularly, staff were not provided with guidelines” from the report
Mental health training
needs fixingStaff understood people's mental health needs but had not received specific mental health awareness training at the time of the inspection. The manager said this was booked for completion by the end of December 2018.
“However, records showed that staff were not provided with training in mental health awareness.” from the report
Condition of walls
minorSome walls looked worn and needed painting. The manager said work was being arranged and would be finished by the end of the year.
“However, we found that some walls in the home looked scruffy and in need of paint.” from the report
- 01What staffing levels are in place during the day, and how will staff support activities and outings?
- 02Have smoking risk assessments now been completed for everyone who smokes, and how often are they reviewed?
- 03Are medicines protocols now written and available to all staff for missed or occasional medicines?
- 04Do each person's fire evacuation plans explain the help they need to leave the building safely?
- 05Was the planned mental health awareness training completed, and how is staff knowledge checked?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, and the report says the overall rating remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 December 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 Gleneagle House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014Inspected but not ratedSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 October 2012.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Lambeth
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 £1,250 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“She is just one of those people that looks around, sees what needs to be done and does it.”
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.