CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glenesk Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found a possible trip hazard from exposed extension leads and a lack of privacy at the manager's station. Water-testing records were not clear or up to date, although the provider supplied an updated water test and planned a clearer recording system.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans included their choices and preferences. Staff had relevant training, people were supported with food and drink, and the home worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- A separate Caring rating was not given in this focused inspection. The report describes person-centred care, respect for people's choices and a positive culture.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were reviewed and updated, and care was tailored to people's needs. People were supported with activities, family relationships, communication and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had improved its quality monitoring and leadership. Medicines systems, staff handovers and electronic care planning had improved, and the previous Regulation 17 breach had been resolved.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, but safety checks and the environment still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 July 2022. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with five people, nine relatives and five staff. They reviewed care and medicine records, staff files, training information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found people received personalised care, had enough to eat and drink, and were supported to take part in activities and maintain relationships. Staff were described as supportive, and medicines management had improved through a new electronic system.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Exposed extension leads created a possible trip hazard, the manager's station did not provide privacy, and water-testing records were unclear or out of date. The home had improved since the previous comprehensive inspection, and the provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 17.
Improved medicines management
Medicines were administered safely, with an electronic system designed to reduce errors and alert staff when medicines were due.
“An electronic medicine recording system was in place to minimise errors.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, routines and choices. Staff used these plans to provide care that matched individual needs.
“Care plans contained person-centred information within them. For example, people's likes, dislikes, routines and choices.” from the report
Food and drink
People had choices at mealtimes and were supported to stay nourished and hydrated. Inspectors described the dining experience as calm and enjoyable.
“The dining experience was calm, and people mixed and enjoyed their meal.” from the report
Positive leadership
Inspectors found improved governance, approachable management and a positive culture. Families and staff said they could raise concerns and felt listened to.
“There was a positive person-centred culture within the home.” from the report
Trip hazard and privacy
seriousThe manager's station was in a communal dining area. Exposed extension leads created a possible trip hazard, and private conversations could be overheard.
“The manager station was in an area of the dining room and extension leads were exposed for the printer and other electrical equipment.” from the report
Unclear water-safety records
seriousRecords showing checks for legionella were not clear or up to date. The provider supplied an updated water test after inspectors raised this and said it would introduce a clearer recording system.
“However, we found the records for water testing for legionella were not clear or up to date.” from the report
Staff vacancies
needs fixingThe home had vacancies and was recruiting to fill shortfalls. Inspectors found enough staff at the visit, but one staff member said an extra staff member would sometimes help.
“The manager told us they had vacancies and were currently recruiting to fill the shortfalls.” from the report
- 01What has been done to remove or safely cover the exposed extension leads?
- 02How are private conversations now kept confidential when the manager's station is in a communal area?
- 03Can you show us the current records for legionella and other water-safety testing?
- 04How many staff vacancies are there now, and how do you make sure there are enough staff on every shift?
- 05What refurbishment work has been completed, and what work remains?
This was a focused inspection to check a previous Regulation 17 warning notice and infection-control arrangements; Caring was not separately rated and the report does not provide a new rating for it. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 August 2022 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, February 2022
Glenesk Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly good infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak, with visiting guidance needing correction.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 February 2022. Inspectors focused on infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, staffing pressures and whether the home was following safety measures.
Inspectors found good arrangements for testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing, isolation and safe admissions. They were assured that the home was managing infection risks and had enough staff to support people safely.
The home was closed to non-essential visitors during the outbreak, but it offered window visits and video calls. Inspectors found that the home was not fully following government guidance allowing essential care givers to visit during an outbreak. The provider said it would change its visiting policy.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or other rating for the service.
Infection control
Inspectors found effective arrangements for PPE, testing, cleaning, isolation and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Safe visiting alternatives
Although the home was closed to non-essential visitors during the outbreak, people could use window visits and video calls. Exceptions were made for people nearing the end of life or at increased risk of loneliness.
“People were provided with alternative methods of visitation from relatives.” from the report
Staffing cover
The provider had measures to manage COVID-19-related staff pressures and inspectors found enough staff to cover sickness, holidays and isolation.
“There were enough staff to support people safely and to cover any staff holidays, sickness and COVID-19 isolation.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors saw that the home was visibly clean and tidy, with regular cleaning of touch points and other key areas.
“We observed the home was visibly clean and tidy.” from the report
Essential care giver visits
needs fixingDuring the outbreak, the home was not fully following government guidance allowing essential care givers to enter. The provider accepted this and said it would amend its visiting policy.
“The provider was not currently fully following the government guidelines on essential care givers' being allowed access to the home.” from the report
- 01Has the visiting policy now been changed to allow essential care givers during an outbreak?
- 02How do you decide whether someone is at increased risk of loneliness and should receive an exception to visiting restrictions?
- 03How do you support people living with dementia during bedroom isolation?
- 04How often are residents and staff tested when there is an outbreak?
- 05How do you maintain staffing levels when staff are off sick or isolating?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care quality questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 2022 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 Glenesk Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 February 2015.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.