CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glengariff Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home had effective infection prevention and control arrangements. These included testing, personal protective equipment, safe admissions, visiting controls and isolation zones.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Glengariff Residential Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and visiting arrangements were safe.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 3 March 2021. It looked at how the home prevented and controlled Covid-19 infection.
The home was near the end of an outbreak. Inspectors found good arrangements for testing, personal protective equipment, handwashing, visiting, admissions and separating people who needed to isolate.
The inspectors said they were assured about the infection control measures. The home was not given an overall quality rating or a Safe rating from this inspection.
Infection control
The home worked with local health and council organisations during a Covid-19 outbreak. Inspectors found suitable supplies, training and procedures to manage infection.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had pre-arranged visiting, a glass pod and other ways for relatives to keep in touch. Arrangements were also in place for relatives to visit people at the end of their life.
“Alternative arrangements to visiting in person included video or telephone calls and weekly updates from the manager.” from the report
Safe admissions and isolation
People were not admitted without a negative Covid-19 test and were isolated for 14 days. Separate areas and dedicated staff were used during the outbreak.
“During the outbreak, isolation zones were implemented effectively using the third floor and a ground floor wing with dedicated staff.” from the report
Staff wellbeing
The manager introduced informal sessions where staff could talk about their wellbeing. Staff feedback said these sessions were helpful and they were going to continue.
“Feedback from staff found this very helpful and a decision has been made for it to continue.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are Covid-19 testing arrangements for people and staff managed now?
- 02How can relatives visit, and what alternatives are available if an in-person visit cannot take place?
- 03What happens if a new resident returns from hospital or tests positive for Covid-19?
- 04How would the home separate people and staff if there was another infection outbreak?
- 05How is staff wellbeing supported now that the report's drop-in sessions were introduced?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the service was inspected but not rated and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 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, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with clear improvements since the previous Requires improvement rating.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 4 January 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines, staffing records, complaints, accidents and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as safe and well cared for. Staff were kind, medicines were managed safely, care plans were detailed, and the home worked well with other professionals.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when all five areas were Requires improvement and four regulations were breached. Some further work was still needed on involving people in redecoration and creating a more suitable environment for people with dementia.
Clean and safer surroundings
Inspectors found communal areas, bedrooms, bathrooms and toilets clean. Improvements included new flooring and better controls on access to hazardous materials.
“We found that the bathrooms, toilets, people's rooms and the communal areas were clean and free of unpleasant odours.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff were gentle, familiar and respectful. Inspectors saw people being supported with dignity and encouraged to express their views.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, health needs and support requirements. Staff could explain how individual care should be provided.
“Care plans were comprehensive and contained information about people's diverse physical, social and mental health need.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home acted on advice from health professionals and shared information when people needed hospital or other services.
“The service worked very well with a variety of health and social care professionals.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
needs fixingInspectors saw few fixtures, fittings or other features to support interaction and stimulation for people with complex communication and dementia-related needs. They recommended exploring good practice guidance and involving people more in redecoration.
“We saw minimal fixtures or fittings or equipment which provided support, interaction and stimulation for people with complex communication and dementia related needs.” from the report
Waiting for staff
minorA small number of people said they sometimes waited for staff, particularly on the upper floors, although inspectors found people's needs were generally attended to quickly.
“People's needs were attended to quickly, although a small number of people told us they had to wait sometimes for staff, especially those on the upper floors.” from the report
Employment history records
minorThere were gaps in some staff employment histories. The manager agreed to improve this, and the report says it was completed shortly after the inspection.
“However, there were some gaps in the employment history of the staff they employed.” from the report
- 01What refurbishment has been completed since the inspection, and how have residents helped choose the redecoration?
- 02What changes are being made to make the environment more supportive for people with dementia?
- 03How do you monitor call bell response times on the upper floors?
- 04How do you check that food, fluid and repositioning records show the required amounts and any concerns?
- 05How do you make sure staff employment histories and other recruitment checks are complete?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and care provided; it followed up improvements required after the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 February 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 Glengariff Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.