CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glengarriff House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe, staff understood safeguarding and there were enough staff to meet assessed needs. Some recruitment files held at the home did not match centrally held information, and an audit was started.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found people were protected from abuse, with enough staff and effective infection controls.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 28 October 2021. Inspectors checked specific concerns about safeguarding, staffing and recruitment. They also checked infection prevention and control measures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors spoke with six people, five staff members and the registered manager. They observed care, reviewed four care records and five recruitment files, and checked rotas, training and quality records after the visit.
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to report abuse, there were enough staff to meet people's assessed needs, and infection control arrangements were in place. Some recruitment files at the home did not match information held centrally, so an audit was started.
The service was inspected but not rated at this visit. Its previous overall rating was Good, published on 27 March 2020, and the report says that rating remained unchanged. This inspection did not assess the whole service.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe living at the home. Staff understood how people who did not use speech might show concerns or fears.
“People told us they felt safe living at Glengarriff House.” from the report
Safeguarding arrangements
Staff knew how to raise concerns with the manager or outside agencies. The home had reported safeguarding concerns to external agencies in a timely way.
“The registered manager had reported safeguarding concerns to external agencies such as the local authority and the Care Quality Commission in a timely manner.” from the report
Enough staff
Rotas showed that people's assessed support hours were maintained. Cover arrangements were in place for vacancies, sickness and annual leave.
“Enough staff were deployed within the home to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about the use of protective equipment, testing, hygiene, visits and plans for preventing or managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Recruitment records did not always match
needs fixingSome recruitment files kept at the home did not reflect information held by the central recruitment team. An audit was started after the inspection to make records accurate and up to date.
“Some recruitment files held within the home did not reflect the information held centrally.” from the report
- 01Has the audit of staff files been completed, and were any missing or incorrect records found?
- 02How do you make sure recruitment checks, including DBS checks and references, are accurately recorded at the home?
- 03How many staff are normally on duty for the main house and the apartments, and how is cover arranged for sickness or vacancies?
- 04How are safeguarding concerns recorded, reported and followed up?
- 05How are visits and infection control managed if there is a COVID-19 or other infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of safeguarding, staffing, recruitment and infection prevention and control; it did not assess the whole service, and the previous ratings remained in place. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 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, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the service was not always effective.
The inspection took place over two days. One day was unannounced and the second was announced. The inspector spoke with six people living at the home, seven care staff, the registered manager and two provider representatives. Records, medicines, staff files and quality checks were also reviewed.
People told inspectors they felt safe and liked living at the home. Staff knew people well, treated them with kindness, supported their choices and helped them take part in activities, healthcare and daily tasks. There were enough staff and medicines were managed safely.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Requires Improvement because some best-interests records were incomplete and maintenance work had not always been dealt with promptly. The last overall rating was Good in September 2017, while Well-led improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff understood how to identify and report abuse. Risks were assessed and staff followed plans to reduce them.
“People told us they felt safe living at Glengarriff House.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. People's privacy, dignity, choices and independence were respected.
“Throughout the inspection we saw staff made sure people's privacy was protected and their dignity was promoted.” from the report
Personalised daily life
Staff knew people's histories and preferences. People were supported with activities, relationships, meals, work and travel according to their wishes.
“Staff demonstrated a detailed knowledge of people's personal histories and their preferences for care and support.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and recruitment checks were completed. Medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Improved leadership
The well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. The manager and provider acted on safety concerns and used audits and meetings to support improvement.
“At this inspection this key question has improved to good.” from the report
Maintenance was not always prompt
needs fixingPlanned upkeep did not always deal with repairs and redecoration quickly enough. Work began during the inspection, and the provider later sent an action plan.
“However, this did not always address issues in a timely way.” from the report
Some decisions were not fully recorded
needs fixingSome consent forms did not show who had been involved or whether a best-interests decision had been made. The manager said these records would be reviewed and improved.
“Some consent forms did not record the involvement of people or where best interest decisions had been made.” from the report
Staff knowledge of guidance
minorStaff were not familiar with some guidance behind the service's approach, although inspectors found no impact on people. The manager said learning opportunities would be improved.
“However, we found care staff were not familiar the guidance documents (RTRS) which underpinned their practice.” from the report
- 01What repairs and redecoration were identified in the property audit, and have all the actions now been completed?
- 02How do you make sure every best-interests decision records who was involved and why the decision was made?
- 03What training or learning have staff received about Registering the Right Support guidance?
- 04How are staffing levels checked each day, including when there are vacant shifts?
- 05How do you support each person to make choices, build independence and take part in activities?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the first day was unannounced and the second day was announced. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 March 2020 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 Glengarriff House
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 2011.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.