CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glenkindie Lodge Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Glenkindie Lodge Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with activities and some building improvements still needing attention.
Inspectors visited on 26 and 28 September 2022 without announcing the visit. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and the management team. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and other records. They also observed care and checked infection control.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staffing had increased and the home was clean. People received suitable food and drink, had access to health professionals and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
The home had improved since its previous Requires Improvement rating. Earlier concerns about risk records and quality monitoring had been addressed. The home was no longer in breach of regulations.
Improved risk management
The home had strengthened its risk assessments and emergency evacuation plans. Inspectors found enough improvement for the previous breach to end.
“Potential areas of risk were assessed and kept under review.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Relatives consistently described staff as kind and caring. People's dignity, privacy and independence were promoted.
“People were respected and treated with compassion and kindness.” from the report
Safe medicines and infection control
Medicines were administered by trained staff whose competence was checked. Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control arrangements.
“Medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely and information about a person's medicine was recorded within their medication and care records.” from the report
Access to dental care
needs fixingPeople had not benefited from seeing a dentist because the home had difficulty registering them with a dental practice. The manager said arrangements were being made with a local practice.
“People however had not benefited from being seen by a dentist.” from the report
Some environmental improvements still needed
minorRedecoration and new furnishings were ongoing. Some relatives felt bedrooms and other parts of the home still looked tired, and there was no shelter for people using the garden to smoke.
“However, others said further improvements were needed, stating the service looked tired and improvements to the décor of bedrooms, including personalisation of these with photographs would be welcomed.” from the report
Communication with less frequent visitors
minorSome relatives said communication could be better for people who could not visit regularly. The home planned a television screen, newsletter and updated online information.
“However, people said communication could be improved for those who could not regularly visit.” from the report
- 01How often are activities now provided at weekends, and what trips or outings are available?
- 02Have all residents now been registered with a dentist, and how are dental appointments arranged?
- 03What environmental improvements have been completed in bedrooms and other areas since this inspection?
- 04What shelter or other protection is available for people using the garden in bad weather?
- 05How will relatives who cannot visit regularly receive updates about care, activities and events?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, with infection prevention and control also checked under Safe; it followed earlier concerns about risk management and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 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, March 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; safety and governance still had legal breaches, although the home improved and is no longer in special measures.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 10 and 11 January 2022. They spoke with six relatives and four staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home had improved since its previous Inadequate rating. Medicines were managed safely, staff training and support had improved, and systems for monitoring accidents, incidents and some risks were in place.
Important gaps remained. Risk records did not always give staff enough information about choking, diabetes or emergency evacuation. Staffing levels had not been properly reviewed, and some required checks of staff medicine skills had not been completed.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The home left special measures, but CQC continued to monitor it and took enforcement action by varying a condition.
Safer medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely. Records included guidance about medicines given when needed.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Improved staff support
Staff had training in important care areas and received more regular supervision. Relatives and staff described the training and support positively.
“Staff undertook training in key areas to enable them to provide the care, support and wellbeing people required.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People's dietary needs were assessed and professional advice was followed. The home made health referrals and supported people with appointments and screening.
“People's nutritional needs were assessed and kept under review.” from the report
Improved management
Management arrangements, audits and improvement planning had improved since the previous inspection. Relatives reported more contact and welcomed meetings.
“Governance and oversight of the service had improved.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousRisk records did not always tell staff enough about how to keep people safe. This included choking support, diabetes monitoring and emergency evacuation plans.
“The provider had not fully assessed and mitigated the risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.” from the report
Staffing levels
needs fixingThe provider had not used people's needs to review the overall number of staff required. Staff were often busy answering call bells and said they lacked time to sit and talk with people.
“We noted staff were very busy responding to call bells.” from the report
Governance not fully effective
seriousQuality systems had improved but were not yet consistently operating well enough to identify and reduce all risks. This remained a breach of the good governance regulation.
“The provider had not ensured systems and processes were operated effectively to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Medicine competency checks
needs fixingStaff had medicine training, but the home had not recorded that their practical competence had been assessed as required by its medicine policy.
“Staff had received training, however there was no reference to staff's competence having been assessed in medicine management.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingCapacity assessments and best-interest decisions were completed, but the records did not fully explain how the decision had been made.
“Mental capacity assessments had been undertaken; however, they did not fully record how people's capacity had been determined and the best interest decision made.” from the report
- 01Have the risk assessments for choking, diabetes and emergency evacuation now been completed with the missing details?
- 02How do you now calculate and review staffing levels against each resident's needs and the layout of the home?
- 03Have all staff who give medicines had their competency assessed, as well as completing training?
- 04How are you checking that the improvement plan is being completed and that improvements remain in place?
- 05How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions now recorded in full?
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating and assessed Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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 Glenkindie Lodge Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Glenkindie Lodge Residential Care Home →
- March 2022Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Glenkindie Lodge Residential Care Home →
- September 2021InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 November 2017.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of North Northamptonshire
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. 76 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.”
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.