CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glenthorne House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and staff understood their individual risks. Inspectors found gaps in recording topical creams, although people and staff said the creams were given when needed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff found the management team approachable and supportive. Quality checks were in place, although feedback from a recent staff survey had not yet been processed.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Glenthorne House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, but some medicine records and parts of the environment needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 August 2022. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with 10 people, four relatives and six staff. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment checks and quality monitoring documents.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. People said they felt safe, received their medicines as prescribed and had enough staff available to help them. Staff understood people's risks and knew how to respond to possible abuse.
Inspectors found some gaps in recording topical creams. Some furniture, carpeting and lighting pull cords also needed replacing to support effective cleaning and safety. The manager said these issues were being addressed.
The inspection was prompted partly by concerns about general care, but inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from those concerns. The overall Good rating remained the same as at the previous inspection, published in June 2019.
Medicines given as prescribed
People said they received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and assessed as competent before giving medicines.
“People received their medicines as prescribed by trained and competent staff.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely and promptly. Recruitment checks, including DBS checks, were completed.
“People were supported by enough staff to safely and promptly support them.” from the report
Risks understood
Risks such as falls, nutrition and skin problems had been assessed. Staff knew how to reduce the risks of harm.
“Staff members knew the individual risks to people and what to do to safely support them.” from the report
Open management
People and staff said managers were approachable and that their views were valued. The provider carried out regular quality checks.
“People and staff found the management team and provider approachable and supportive.” from the report
Topical cream records
needs fixingThere were gaps in the records showing when topical creams had been given. Inspectors believed this was a recording problem, but the manager said the process would be revised.
“However, there were some gaps in the recording of people's topical creams.” from the report
Worn parts of the building
minorSome furniture was worn, and carpets and lighting pull cords needed replacement. The provider had identified replacements and had a refurbishment plan.
“However, we saw some furniture was worn and needed replacing in order to complete effective cleaning practices.” from the report
Feedback not yet acted on
minorA recent staff survey had been completed, but the manager had not yet processed the feedback or made any resulting improvements.
“However, as this had recently been completed the manager was yet to process the feedback or implement any changes or improvements.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure topical creams are recorded every time?
- 02Have the worn furniture, carpets and lighting pull cords now been replaced?
- 03What feedback came from the recent staff survey, and what changes were made as a result?
- 04How is the change of manager being managed, and who is currently responsible for the home?
- 05How will you keep families informed if there are future concerns about care or safety?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key question ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 September 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
Glenthorne House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control arrangements.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. They also asked about staffing pressures and their effect on people.
The inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, admissions, testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and possible outbreaks safely. The home had a visiting policy, booking system and ways for people to keep in touch with relatives when visits were not possible.
The overall service and Safe question were marked 'Inspected but not rated'. This means this visit did not give the home a quality rating.
Visitor arrangements
Visitors were screened with lateral flow tests and visits were booked to manage numbers. The home also supported video calls, telephone calls and window visits when needed.
“The provider had systems in place to screen visitors to the home for Covid-19 using a lateral flow test.” from the report
Use of PPE
Staff were observed using personal protective equipment correctly and in line with government guidance.
“Staff used personal protective equipment in line with government guidance and were observed using this correctly.” from the report
Safe admissions
Admissions were managed in line with government guidance. Rooms were deep cleaned after the isolation period.
“Admissions to the home were managed safely, in line with government guidance and a deep clean of the room was completed at the end of the isolation period.” from the report
Communication with families
The manager kept the visiting policy up to date and explained procedures to people, relatives and staff.
“The registered manager ensured people, relatives and staff were informed of procedures and why these were important.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently screening visitors and managing the number of visitors at one time?
- 02How do you support residents to keep in touch with relatives if an in-person visit is not possible?
- 03How do you manage new admissions, including testing, isolation and room cleaning?
- 04What staffing pressures are there now, and how do they affect people living in the home?
- 05How often is the infection prevention and control policy reviewed and updated?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for most areas, and the report gives conflicting inspection dates. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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 Glenthorne House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 May 2018.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Wolverhampton
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 £1,230 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.