CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glenfield Woodlands Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Glenfield Woodlands Care Home rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines, safety checks, infection control and management oversight.
Inspectors visited on 04 and 05 July 2023. The first day was unannounced and about 20 hours’ notice was given for the second day. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care files, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was not always safe. Falls and choking risks were not always assessed properly. Medicines were not always given or recorded safely. Inspectors also found problems with infection control, including dirty kitchen equipment, stained mattress covers and poor hand hygiene.
People did not always receive effective, respectful or person-centred care. There was a lack of activities, some communication needs were not met, and people were not always offered a choice of meals. Staff training checks and fluid monitoring also needed improvement.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were not inspected in this focused inspection, so the overall rating used previous ratings for those areas. The previous overall rating was Good in 2019.
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing levels were sufficient and recruitment checks were completed.
“People were supported by enough staff, and safe recruitment checks were in place.” from the report
Positive relationships
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff and the atmosphere. Staff also said they felt valued and comfortable raising concerns.
“People and their families spoke positively about the care staff and the atmosphere at the service.” from the report
Action during inspection
The provider responded to several issues raised by inspectors, including reviewing care plans and risk assessments and replacing damaged equipment.
“The provider was responsive to concerns raised during our inspection and took action to improve safety and quality of care.” from the report
Medicines and risk management
seriousMedicines were not always administered or recorded safely. Falls and choking risks were also not always assessed accurately, creating a risk of harm.
“Unsafe medicine practices, poor risk management and poor infection prevention and control measures, put people at risk of potential harm.” from the report
Infection control
seriousInspectors found dirty kitchen equipment, stained mattress covers, damaged handrails and hand hygiene that did not always follow expected practice.
“We found some areas of the kitchen where cooking equipment was stored to be visibly dirty.” from the report
Dignity, communication and activities
seriousStaff did not always respond when people were uncomfortable, support hearing aid use or provide activities described in care plans.
“A lack of activity engagement, meeting people's communication needs, and poor response by staff to people expressing discomfort, was a breach of regulation 10 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Staff competency
needs fixingMedicine competency assessments were incomplete and moving and handling competency assessments had not been completed. Inspectors observed a damaged sling being used.
“There were no moving and handling competency assessments completed by the provider.” from the report
Food and fluids
needs fixingPeople were not always offered a choice of meals, and fluid records were disorganised and did not always show whether people drank enough.
“People were not always provided with meal options during mealtimes.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousQuality systems did not reliably identify problems in care plans, medicines, pressure-relieving mattresses or complaints.
“Quality assurance processes and service oversight was not always effective.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicines administration, recording and checks since the inspection?
- 02How are falls, choking and swallowing risks now assessed and kept up to date?
- 03How do you check that staff are competent in medicines administration and moving and handling?
- 04What activities and communication support are now available, including help with hearing aids?
- 05How do you now monitor meal choices, fluid intake, infection control and care plan reviews?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 November 2023 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
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements, but laundry works were still needed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 28 January 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. The home was caring for 17 people.
Inspectors found enough protective equipment, suitable infection control policies and staff trained in using protective equipment. The home was clean and free from smells. Care plans included ways to reduce each person's COVID-19 risks, with isolation plans used when needed.
Visits were supported with testing, vaccination checks, health questions and temperature checks. The home also offered video calls, emails, letters and social media as alternatives. Some laundry areas still needed work, although the registered manager had identified this and had a plan to address it.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall quality rating.
Protective equipment and training
The home had enough protective equipment, and staff had training in infection prevention and how to use it safely.
“The provider ensured there was a sufficient stock of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in place and infection control policies were in place.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and without unpleasant smells. Hand sanitising gel was available in regular areas.
“There were regular areas where staff could use hand sanitising gel.” from the report
Individual COVID-19 plans
Care plans described how to reduce COVID-19 risks for individuals. Isolation plans were used when someone tested positive.
“If a person had tested positive for COVID-19, an isolation care plan was implemented to ensure the person was cared for safely.” from the report
Support for visiting
The home had checks for visitors and offered alternatives to face-to-face visits.
“The service offered alternatives to face to face visits where this was requested, including: video calls, emails, letters and social media.” from the report
Laundry work still needed
minorSome areas of the laundry still needed improvement. The registered manager had identified this and had a plan to resolve it.
“Further works were required in areas of the laundry.” from the report
- 01What work was still needed in the laundry, and has it now been completed?
- 02How do you currently manage staffing pressures caused by COVID-19, and have these affected people living here?
- 03What are the current rules for visiting the home, including testing, vaccination checks and other health checks?
- 04How are isolation care plans used if a resident tests positive for COVID-19?
- 05How often are staff trained and checked on using protective equipment safely?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the home was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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 Glenfield Woodlands Care Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- November 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Glenfield Woodlands Care Home →
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Glenfield Woodlands Care Home →
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 2010.
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 Leicester
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 £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.