CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glenthorne Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People had individual risk assessments, medicines were stored and recorded safely, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Inspectors noted that some guidance for medicines given when needed was not initially specific to each person, but documents were improved after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and support plans, received healthcare support and were helped to eat, cook and live healthier lives. Some staff were due refresher training, with plans in place to address this.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and caring. Staff knew people's personalities and preferences, respected privacy and supported people to make choices and become more independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans described people's individual needs, communication preferences and goals. People could choose activities, go out individually and join group outings, and complaints were handled according to the home's procedure.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Audits and checks had improved, and issues were recorded in action plans. People and staff were regularly asked for their views, and inspectors found an open and supportive management approach.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Glenthorne Court is rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and improved safety and management, with some training still due.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 17 June 2019. One inspector spoke with six people, five staff and two external health professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated with dignity, supported to make choices and helped to become more independent. Medicines were safely managed, care plans were detailed and activities reflected people's interests.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and had two regulatory breaches. At this inspection, inspectors found enough improvement and said the home was no longer in breach of those regulations.
Personalised support
Support plans contained detailed information about people's needs and preferences. Staff tailored how they communicated and supported each person.
“Support plans included detailed information about each person and how they wished staff to support them.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to make decisions, take positive risks and develop practical skills. They could go out, prepare food and take part in activities that interested them.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw that staff respected privacy and asked permission before entering people's flats.
“People told us staff treated them with respect.” from the report
Improved management
The home had strengthened its audits and checks since the previous inspection. People and staff were involved in suggesting and making improvements.
“Monitoring of the service had improved.” from the report
Refresher training due
needs fixingSome staff had not yet completed refresher training. The home had plans to address this, but families should check what has since been completed.
“Some staff were due refresher training but this had not yet taken place.” from the report
Medicine guidance needed updating
needs fixingGuidance for medicines given when needed did not initially include information about each person's individual needs. The home sent evidence after the inspection that the documents had been reviewed and improved.
“did not contain information specific to each persons' individual needs.” from the report
Building larger than current guidance
minorThe home was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building design helped reduce the possible negative impact on people.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01What refresher training was due for staff, and has all of it now been completed?
- 02How is guidance for medicines given when needed tailored to my relative's individual needs?
- 03How does the building design and layout support residents, given that the home is larger than current best practice guidance?
- 04How will my relative be involved in setting goals, making choices and developing independence?
- 05How are residents' suggestions from monthly meetings followed up and checked?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the report also compared the service with its previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 July 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
Glenthorne Court was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but safety and management checks were not reliable.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 27 March 2018. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals. They reviewed care and medicines records, staff files, policies and management records, and toured the building.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were supported by trained staff who knew them well. Inspectors found respectful care, promotion of independence, regular activities and access to health professionals.
Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found missing risk information, unsafe hot water, gaps in medicine records and checks that had not found these problems. The home was in breach of Regulations 12 and 17.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, patience and respect. People’s privacy and dignity were protected.
“Staff showed respect for people at all times and ensured their dignity was maintained.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were supported to develop everyday skills and to live as independently as possible. Staff helped people make choices rather than doing everything for them.
“People living at this service were being supported to increase their independence with the aim of being able to live in their own home in the community.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people’s preferences, abilities and hopes. Staff could explain how individuals wanted to be supported.
“Care plans were person centred and included people's life histories and preferences.” from the report
Activities and community links
People took part in outings, holidays, college courses and local activities. The home had a vehicle to support community access.
“People were able to access the local community and take part in a range of outings and activities.” from the report
Important risks were missing from assessments
seriousOne person with epilepsy did not have guidance covering risks in places such as the shower or kitchen. Staff therefore did not have enough written information to keep that person safe.
“There was no risk assessment in place to minimise risk of their seizures causing harm in high danger environments” from the report
Medicine records were incomplete
seriousSome medicine records did not explain omissions or contain key details. Inspectors also identified issues with opening dates, patch records and PRN protocols.
“We saw that there were some gaps in recording on Medication Administration Records (MARs)” from the report
Hot water was too hot
seriousA kitchen tap reached 50 degrees, although the home's policy said accessible hot water should not exceed 43 degrees. The issue was fixed during the inspection.
“the kitchen tap in one person's flat was running at 50 degrees which could have resulted in the person being scalded.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
seriousAudits and other checks had not found the problems with risk assessments and medicines records. This led to a continued breach of good governance requirements.
“Provider and registered manager checks had not identified the issues we found in these areas during our inspection.” from the report
- 01What specific changes have been made to risk assessments for people with epilepsy or other individual risks?
- 02How are medicine omissions, opening dates, patch applications and PRN protocols now checked and recorded?
- 03How do you make sure hot water temperatures remain within the safe limit in every flat?
- 04What changes have been made to provider and manager audits so that safety and record-keeping problems are identified promptly?
- 05Can you explain what action was taken after the two continued breaches and what evidence is available that the problems have been fixed?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with the inspection visit taking place on 27 March 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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 Glenthorne Court
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 November 2015.
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
45 live-in carers within about an hour of Stockton-on-Tees
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 £1,190 a week. 40 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“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.