CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glenholme Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safeguarding procedures, reviewed risk assessments and good infection control. They identified improvements needed in controlled-drug storage and some recording.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this visit, so no new rating was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this visit, so no new rating was given. Inspectors did report positive feedback about staff's caring and respectful approach.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this visit, so no new rating was given.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management oversight, regular checks and audits, effective communication and good involvement of people, relatives and staff.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Glenholme Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring care and strong management, with some medicine recording improvements needed.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 20 and 25 April 2023. One inspector and one Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good safeguarding arrangements, suitable risk assessments and generally safe medicine systems. They also found the home clean and good infection control arrangements.
People and relatives spoke positively about staff being kind, respectful and approachable. The management team had effective checks, listened to feedback and acted on concerns. Inspectors discussed improvements to controlled-drug storage and some recording, and the manager took immediate action on part of this.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives trusted staff and described positive relationships. Staff supported people discreetly, compassionately and as individuals.
“People and relatives were very positive about the caring nature of staff and had good relationships with them.” from the report
Safe staffing and safeguarding
There were enough staff to support people safely. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and concerns were investigated.
“There were sufficient staff to support people safely.” from the report
Good management oversight
The management team used checks, audits and feedback to monitor the service and make improvements. Staff and relatives found communication effective.
“There was a strong and effective governance system in place.” from the report
Clean home and infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection risks were managed, the home was clean and visits were not restricted.
“Staff followed good infection control practices and the home was clean and well maintained.” from the report
Controlled-drug storage and records
needs fixingInspectors discussed improvements to the storage of controlled drugs and records made when visiting professionals administered them. The manager took some immediate action and said other issues would be addressed in good time.
“We discussed improvements for the additional storage of controlled drugs and the current recording of controlled drugs by staff, where they were administered by visiting professionals.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the additional storage of controlled drugs since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that controlled drugs administered by visiting professionals are recorded correctly?
- 03What were the remaining medicine issues mentioned by inspectors, and have they now been fully resolved?
- 04How do you use feedback from people, relatives and staff to make changes?
- 05What are the current ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not assessed in this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key-question ratings were not newly assessed and the overall rating remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 May 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, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors visited the home on 3 November 2020. The visit was announced and formed part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes.
They found enough protective equipment, including gloves, masks, aprons and visors. Staff had training and understood how to use it safely. The home also had arrangements for testing, social distancing, cleaning, admissions and managing possible outbreaks.
People could keep in touch with loved ones through a visiting pod in the car park. Relatives and friends could not enter the home at that time.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall rating such as Good or Requires improvement.
Protective equipment
The home had enough gloves, masks, aprons and visors. Staff had training in putting on and removing this equipment.
“The service had access to sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce the risk of cross contamination and spread of infection.” from the report
Safe family contact
A visiting pod in the car park helped people stay in contact with relatives and friends while limiting the risk of infection.
“A pod had been erected in the car park at the front of the building to support service users to be able to maintain contact with those people who were important to them.” from the report
Reducing spread
The home had several arrangements to reduce transmission, including separate access for health professionals and washing staff uniforms at work.
“This included the provision of taxi transport so staff did not have to use public transport, a separate entrance for health professionals to access the service safely” from the report
Regular checks
The home had systems for carrying out infection control audits each month.
“There were systems in place to ensure infection control audits were carried out each month.” from the report
Approach still being developed
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection control approach. The report does not explain what needed further development.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection control changes have been made since the inspection in November 2020?
- 02How are infection control audits carried out now, and what happens when they identify a problem?
- 03How can residents currently see relatives and friends?
- 04How does the home test residents and staff for infections?
- 05What resources or improvements did the provider act on after being signposted by inspectors?
This was an announced thematic review of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not rate the overall service or the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 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 Glenholme Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Glenholme Residential Care Home →
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Glenholme Residential Care Home →
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Sunderland
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 £950 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.