CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Glennfield Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were safe. This included PPE, testing, visiting, admissions, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
- 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, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were safe during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Inspectors made an unannounced, targeted visit on 14 January 2021. They looked at infection prevention and control because the home was responding to coronavirus outbreaks.
They were assured that the home managed visitors, admissions, shielding, social distancing, personal protective equipment and testing safely. Staff and residents had regular COVID-19 tests, and people with symptoms could receive a rapid test.
The building was clean and uncluttered. Staff were seen washing and sanitising their hands and wearing protective equipment correctly.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report gives an assurance about infection control at that visit, but does not give an overall quality rating.
Testing
Staff and residents had regular COVID-19 testing. People with symptoms could receive a rapid test at the home.
“Staff and people who lived at Glennfield Care Home had regular test for COVID-19.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff used full PPE to protect residents and staff, including when caring for people who tested positive or negative.
“People were supported by staff in full PPE to ensure they were kept safe., whether the person was COVID-19 positive or negative.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the building clean and free from clutter. Staff were seen using PPE correctly and maintaining hand hygiene.
“The building was clean and free from clutter.” from the report
Infection control systems
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering visitors, admissions, social distancing, testing and outbreak management.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection control measures are in place now, and how have they changed since the January 2021 inspection?
- 02What are the current visiting arrangements, and how are visitors checked before entering?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested when there is a suspected infection or outbreak?
- 04How do you make sure agency staff receive the same infection control checks and training as permanent staff?
- 05What arrangements are in place for residents who need to be admitted to the home?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only, and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 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, December 2019
Glennfield Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few minor issues fixed during the visit.
This was an unannounced inspection. Two inspectors and someone with personal experience of care visited the home. They spoke with six people, three relatives and eight staff. They observed care and checked care, medicines, training and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and that staff were kind, respectful and quick to respond. Inspectors also found enough staff, safe medicines systems, personalised care plans and a good range of activities.
Inspectors found a few areas needing improvement. These included making one mealtime more person-centred, some bathroom flooring and an untidy garden. The registered manager acted on these points during the inspection.
The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection, published in June 2017. Good means the inspectors found the service met the relevant standards at the time of this inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and saw that staffing was reviewed when people's needs changed. People said call alarms were answered quickly.
“There were enough staff to ensure people had their needs met in a timely way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed caring interactions and found that people were treated with dignity and respect.
“People and relatives told us staff were kind, caring and respectful towards them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff adapted support to individual needs, including communication needs and activities.
“Care plans were personalised and reflective of people`s likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home offered varied activities, trips, visits and opportunities to spend time with others. Staff also supported people who preferred to stay in their rooms.
“Activities to avoid social isolation were actively delivered and encouraged by staff.” from the report
One mealtime needed to be more individual
needs fixingIn one unit, inspectors found that the mealtime experience was not sufficiently person-centred. The registered manager discussed this with staff and addressed it immediately.
“However, in one unit the experience needed to be more person centred.” from the report
Some areas needed environmental work
needs fixingInspectors identified flooring that needed work in one person's bathroom area. They also found that one garden was not homely or well tended. The manager acted on these points immediately.
“However, one unit needed some work in relation to the flooring in a person's bathroom area and the garden for the oak residence was not homely or well-tended.” from the report
- 01What work was completed on the bathroom flooring, and how is it checked now?
- 02What changes were made to the mealtime experience in the unit where inspectors found it was not person-centred?
- 03How are staffing levels reviewed when people's needs change?
- 04How will my relative's likes, dislikes, communication needs and preferred activities be recorded and reviewed?
- 05How are medicines, care records and staff competencies checked between inspections?
This was an inspection of the whole care home and its care, including all five CQC questions, the premises, medicines, care records, staff training and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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 Glennfield Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.