CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Glenfield House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk records and safe medicines systems. Cleanliness problems were found on the first day but were corrected by the second visit.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management. Quality checks, care plan reviews and cleaning schedules had been improved.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and better leadership, but cleanliness problems were found on the first inspection day and then put right.
Inspectors visited on 11 and 20 January 2022. The first visit was announced and the second was unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. People said they felt safe and thought there were enough staff. Inspectors found safe recruitment, suitable risk records, regular medicines and systems for learning from accidents and incidents.
Inspectors found some soiled furniture, toilets and hoists on the first day. These were cleaned before the second visit and broken equipment was replaced. The home also had infection control measures in place, including safe use of protective equipment.
Only Safe and Well-led were inspected. Both were rated Good. The Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, while the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection.
Enough staff
People and staff told inspectors there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The manager said staffing was adjusted when people's care needs changed.
“People told us they thought there were enough staff on duty to meet their needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and given safely. Records and checks helped staff identify and correct discrepancies.
“Regular checks on medicine records ensured any errors were minimised.” from the report
Good infection controls
After the initial cleanliness problems, the home cleaned the affected areas and replaced broken equipment. Inspectors were assured that protective equipment, testing and outbreak arrangements were in place.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Improved leadership
The well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Inspectors found better quality checks, care plan reviews and cleaning schedules.
“At this inspection the rating has changed to good.” from the report
Cleanliness on the first day
needs fixingInspectors found soiled furniture, toilets and hoists during the first visit. The home acted before the second visit, but families may want to ask how standards are checked every day.
“On the first day of our inspection we identified improvements were required in the provider's infection control practices for example some furniture was soiled, bathrooms had soiled toilets and soiled hoists.” from the report
- 01How do you check that furniture, bathrooms and hoists remain clean every day?
- 02What changes were made to the cleaning schedules after the first inspection day?
- 03How do you review staffing levels when residents' care needs change?
- 04How are medicines records checked, and what happens if a discrepancy is found?
- 05What evidence shows that the improvements in management and care plan reviews are continuing?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, prompted partly by infection control concerns; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective, kind and responsive care, but the home was Requires Improvement for being well-led.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 14 August 2019. They spoke with five people, four relatives and 11 staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable care planning, kind support, good food choices and activities based on people's interests.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement, the same as at the previous inspection. The home had made significant progress, but some checks had been missed and the new systems were not yet fully established.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. The home was no longer in breach of the three regulations identified at the previous inspection, but inspectors said they would continue to monitor it.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staff were available when people needed them and that staff understood people's risks and needs.
“People were supported by enough staff to meet their needs and staff were available when needed.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicine storage, ordering and restocking systems had improved. Checks were carried out to make sure people received medicines correctly.
“Medicines were stored appropriately, and systems were in place to order and restock medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People liked the staff and were supported with their choices, dignity and independence.
“People were cared for by staff who were caring and who people liked and valued.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, preferences and changing needs. People were offered activities and support with individual interests.
“Care plans were detailed and contained information that was specific to each person such as their background.” from the report
Quality checks were not yet reliable
needs fixingSome monitoring systems had gaps. Bed checks had been scheduled but were not completed, and the existing systems did not identify that they had been missed.
“For example, regular checks on beds had been scheduled but not completed.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure scheduled bed checks and other quality checks are completed?
- 02How do you identify and act on any missed checks?
- 03What evidence can you show that the improvements made since the last inspection have been sustained?
- 04How are people's care plans and preferences reviewed when their needs change?
- 05How will you keep families informed about the home's quality monitoring and improvement work?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises; it followed the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 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 Glenfield House Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Glenfield House Nursing Home →
- October 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Glenfield House Nursing Home →
- August 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 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 Worcestershire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.