CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glenroyd House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and most risks were carefully assessed with detailed guidance for staff. However, one person's food allergy was not clearly displayed or covered by a risk assessment, and some staff did not know about it.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and people received support from health professionals. The building was adapted to people's needs, but inspectors said it looked uncared for and needed painting, decorating and other maintenance.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make choices, keep relationships and build independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people could choose activities, meals, holidays and how they spent their time. Easy-read information and a complaints process were available.
- Well-led?
- Good
- New management had improved staff morale, communication and oversight. Some routine checks, including medicine and infection control audits, were not fully up to date.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care and clear improvements, but noted risks with allergy records, medicines and the condition of the building.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 9 April 2019. Two inspectors spoke with people, managers and staff. They checked care and medicine records, staff files, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People felt safe, were treated kindly, and had choice over their daily lives, activities, meals and care. Staff were trained and people had access to health professionals.
The home had improved from Requires improvement at the previous inspection. New management, more drivers and better systems for people's money had helped. Inspectors still asked the home to improve how it recorded risks and managed medicines, and noted that the building needed maintenance.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices and control their daily lives. They could take part in shopping, cooking, activities and community visits.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw relaxed and friendly relationships between people and staff. Staff supported privacy, dignity, relationships and personal preferences.
“We saw people were very relaxed in the company of staff.” from the report
Improved staffing
New staff, including drivers, meant people had better access to the community and their chosen activities. Inspectors found enough staff with suitable skills and attitudes.
“At this inspection we found new staff had been recruited including drivers and there was sufficient staff available to meet peoples needs and preferences.” from the report
Better management
The new manager and deputy were approachable and had helped improve staff morale and the way the home listened to people and staff.
“The new registered manager had many years of experience managing this type of service and we saw their knowledge and expertise was beginning to have a positive impact on the service” from the report
Improved money systems
Concerns found at the previous inspection about people's finances had been addressed. The home had introduced stronger checks to keep people's money safe.
“Improvements had been made in how people's money was managed and a robust system for checking people's finances was now in place.” from the report
Food allergy information
seriousOne person's food allergy was not clearly displayed and there was no specific risk assessment. Three of four staff asked did not know about the allergy. The manager said this was corrected during the inspection.
“Three out of four staff we spoke with were not aware that the person had a food allergy.” from the report
Medicine administration
seriousInspectors found several medicine practice errors, one unsigned medicine record and medicine audits that were behind. The manager took immediate action and removed one staff member's responsibility for giving medicines.
“During our inspection we observed a staff member administering medicines and saw several practice errors.” from the report
Building maintenance
needs fixingThe building needed painting, decorating and other maintenance. Inspectors said its condition could affect how dignified and valued people felt.
“The building looked somewhat uncared for internally and externally and was in need of maintenance such as painting and decorating to give people a better quality of accommodation.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingSome routine safety checks were not up to date, including medicine and infection control audits. Management said it was working on new arrangements to bring them up to date.
“We did see that some of the routine safety checks were not quite up to date, for example, the medicine and infection control audit.” from the report
- 01How is allergy information now displayed and checked so every member of staff knows about it?
- 02What changes were made after the medicine errors, and how are medicine audits now kept up to date?
- 03What painting, decorating and maintenance work has been completed since the inspection, and what remains?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough drivers and staff to support each person's chosen activities?
- 05How are people and families involved in reviewing personalised care plans and daily choices?
This was a planned inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions, following a previous Requires improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 May 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.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care but people missed activities and management systems needed strengthening.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 13 March 2018. They observed care, spoke with people, staff and managers, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records. The inspection was planned as comprehensive and was partly prompted by safeguarding concerns.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely, safe medicines arrangements, suitable training, good health support, and kind and respectful staff. Safeguarding concerns had been investigated and actions had been put in place.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive and Well-led. Some people could not take part in clubs, church, groups or other activities because there were too few drivers and not all staff had the training needed for community support. Inspectors also found low staff morale, weaknesses in rota planning and problems with managing people's money.
The overall rating changed from Good at the November 2015 inspection to Requires Improvement. The report records breaches relating to person-centred care and good governance, and says the provider had to submit an action report that CQC would check.
Safe support
Risks to people's health and safety were assessed, managed and reviewed. There were enough staff and recruitment checks had been completed.
“Risks to people's safety and health were assessed, managed and reviewed.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were obtained, stored, given and disposed of safely. Records showed when and how people took their medicines.
“Systems were in place that showed peoples medicines were managed consistently and safely.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. They had training for people's specific health and support needs.
“Staff provided effective support to people as they were skilled and trained in their job role.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood how people communicated and provided support in a gentle and respectful way. People were supported to maintain dignity, privacy and independence.
“Throughout the day of the inspection, we saw that people were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and were given practical and emotional support when needed.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People were supported with varied food, shopping and meal preparation. Staff helped people attend health appointments and worked with other professionals.
“Staff and organisations worked together to deliver effective physical, emotional and psychological health care support and treatment to people who used the service.” from the report
Missed activities
seriousSome people missed clubs, church, groups and other leisure activities because there were too few staff who could drive and not all staff had the required community support training. The provider was recruiting drivers but had not made enough temporary alternative arrangements.
“People did not always receive personalised care which was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Care plans and sexual orientation
needs fixingCare plans did not always record or respond to people's sexual orientation and preferences. Inspectors recommended improving this area.
“Care plans were written in clear and accessible way but were not always person centred in relation to people's sexual orientation.” from the report
Staff morale and involvement
needs fixingStaff views about management were divided. Some staff said they were not listened to or involved in developing the service, and there were no plans to address low morale.
“There was low morale at the service.” from the report
Managing people's money
seriousNot all senior staff followed the process for handling petty cash. Inspectors found errors and inconsistencies, and the system was not being monitored effectively.
“This was resulting in errors and inconsistencies in the accounting of the money.” from the report
Confidential records
minorDaily notes were left on a table in the dining room where other people could access them. The provider was recommended to remind staff about keeping information confidential.
“However, the daily notes were not kept confidential as, when we arrived, these were on a table in the dining room, accessible to everyone.” from the report
- 01How many staff can currently drive, and how many have training to support people safely in the community, including when emergency seizure medicine may be needed?
- 02What arrangements are now in place so people do not miss clubs, church, groups or other activities when a driver or trained staff member is unavailable?
- 03How are people's petty cash and other finances recorded, checked and audited now?
- 04How are staff views gathered, and what has been done to improve the low morale described in the report?
- 05How are care plans now recording people's sexual orientation, preferences and support needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five key questions, prompted partly by safeguarding concerns; the report says the previous Good ratings for Safe, Effective and Caring remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 June 2018 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 Glenroyd House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 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.