CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Glentworth House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 March 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling infection during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice. Visiting followed government guidance, with temperature checks, lateral flow testing and a questionnaire for visitors. Staff used personal protective equipment correctly, and testing for people and staff was tracked.
The home had plans for an outbreak, including allocating staff to floors and creating an upstairs lounge. Staff regularly cleaned high-touch areas, and activities and newsletters helped reduce isolation.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report gives no overall quality rating and does not provide ratings for the other four questions.
Visitor safety
Visiting followed government guidance, with checks designed to reduce infection risks when people arrived.
“The home allowed visiting in line with government guidance. Robust measures were in place to prevent the risk of infection spread.” from the report
Clear isolation system
A discreet traffic light system showed staff whether someone was isolating, giving a clear visual reminder without being undignified.
“Management had developed a traffic light system where a small coloured dot was in place on each person's door to indicate whether they were in isolation or not.” from the report
Cleaning and PPE
The home had a dedicated housekeeping team, cleaning checklists and regular cleaning of frequently touched areas. Staff were observed using PPE appropriately.
“We saw staff regularly cleaning high touch points, for example door handles, throughout the inspection.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Testing took place in a dedicated room and was recorded. The home also had a plan to manage a COVID-19 outbreak within each floor.
“A folder was seen with clear tracking of testing, this was monitored by management.” from the report
Activities and contact
A timetable of activities and a newsletter helped support wellbeing and keep people and their loved ones informed while external activities were restricted.
“A plentiful activities timetable was in place to improve wellbeing and minimise isolation despite the lack of external activities.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your visiting arrangements changed since this inspection, and what checks are now required?
- 02How do you identify and support people who are isolating?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested, and how are the results recorded and followed up?
- 04What is your current plan for managing an infection outbreak on each floor?
- 05How do you provide activities and contact with loved ones when external activities are not possible?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control as part of the CQC's COVID-19 response; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 April 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, May 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but important medicines, infection control and governance checks were not always reliable.
Inspectors visited without notice on 4 and 5 March 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines, incidents, complaints, audits and recruitment records.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care was personalised, and staff understood their needs well. Inspectors rated the home Good for effective, caring and responsive care.
The home was not always safe. Inspectors found risks involving shared moving equipment, damaged mattress covers, medicines records and recruitment checks. The quality assurance system had not found these problems, so the ratings for Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement.
The overall rating means the home was not consistently meeting the standard expected by the CQC. The previous full inspection, published in September 2016, rated the home Good overall.
Kind and respectful staff
People, relatives and professionals spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw patient, compassionate support that respected privacy and dignity.
“We observed people were treated with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's preferences and adapted support to individual routines, communication needs and interests.
“Care plans had been developed for each person.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff completed a broad range of training, while nurses had specialist training in areas including sepsis, wound care and end of life care.
“Staff completed a range of training to meet their needs, which was refreshed and updated regularly.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with healthcare and social care professionals, and people were supported to access medical services when needed.
“This helped to ensure joined-up care provision.” from the report
Stable staff team
Low staff turnover helped staff build meaningful relationships and understand people's needs.
“The home experienced very low levels of staff turnover, which enabled staff to develop meaningful relationships with people and a comprehensive understanding of their needs.” from the report
Infection control risks
seriousThree mattress covers were no longer waterproof, and hoist slings and slide sheets were sometimes shared between people. The mattresses were replaced during the inspection, but shared equipment still needed action.
“Staff told us that hoist slings and slide sheets used to reposition people were usually allocated to people individually; however, we found these were sometimes shared between people which posed a risk of cross contamination.” from the report
Medicines records and guidance
seriousSome blood-thinning medicine risk assessments were missing. Instructions and records for some as-required medicines and boxed medicines were not complete or robust.
“The lack of clear PRN guidance meant people might not receive their PRN medicines in a safe and consistent way.” from the report
Recruitment records
seriousThe reason for a gap in one staff member's employment history was not recorded. A risk assessment had also not been completed for a staff member with a positive DBS check.
“However, we found the reason for gaps in the employment history of one staff member had not been recorded and an assessment of the potential risks posed by a staff member with a positive DBS check had not been completed.” from the report
Incomplete capacity records
needs fixingMental capacity assessments and best interests decisions were recorded inconsistently. Three people tracked by inspectors did not have these records completed at the time.
“They had been completed fully for some people but had not been completed at all for three people we tracked.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to stop hoist slings and slide sheets being shared between people?
- 02How are risk assessments for blood-thinning medicines now recorded and reviewed?
- 03How do staff record the reason, dose and timing for as-required medicines?
- 04How are boxed medicines counted and checked so that missing tablets would be identified?
- 05How does the home now make sure audits identify problems and that care plan review actions are completed?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions and the care, accommodation and nursing care provided by the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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.
Every inspection of Glentworth House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 2011.
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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
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 £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
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.