CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glover House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were sufficient, and risks were assessed while people's independence was respected.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff had suitable training and supported people with healthcare, food, choices and lawful care. However, some parts of the accommodation were worn, damaged or poorly maintained.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with dignity and respect, protected their privacy and supported their choices. People were helped to express their views and maintain their interests and identities.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported with accessible information, hobbies, social activities and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had quality checks, regular staff meetings and systems for learning from incidents. People and relatives described the service as well run and calmer than before.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Glover House was rated Good overall, with kind and safe care, but the effectiveness of the service Requires Improvement because parts of the building needed repairs.
Inspectors visited on 10 June 2019. They spoke with all three people living there, staff, the manager and the head of care. They also reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and the home's checks on quality and safety.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, and were supported with dignity, choice, activities and everyday independence. Staff had the training and skills needed, and there were enough staff on duty.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Some carpets, paintwork, tiles, radiators, furniture and other parts of the accommodation were worn or damaged. This was the same rating as at the previous inspection. A medicines breach found in 2018 had been addressed by this inspection.
Medicines now managed safely
The home had corrected the medicines problem found at the previous inspection. Staff followed guidance and records were audited.
“At this inspection in June 2019 suitable provision had been made to ensure that doctors' prescribing instructions were promptly noted and implemented.” from the report
Respectful support
Staff were polite, protected privacy and gave people time to communicate and make choices. They supported people to learn from everyday decisions rather than restricting them unnecessarily.
“Support staff were consistently courteous, polite and helpful.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to enjoy activities suited to their interests, including shopping, swimming, bowling, meals out and visits to places of interest.
“At the present inspection in June 2019 people were being supported to enjoy a wide range of social activities.” from the report
Good learning and oversight
The manager used audits to review incidents, medicines, support plans, health and safety and infection control. The home had acted when things went wrong.
“At this inspection in June 2019 there were robust arrangements in place to ensure the smooth running of the service including the management of medicines.” from the report
Worn and damaged accommodation
needs fixingInspectors found worn carpets, chipped and marked paintwork, damaged tiles and radiators, and a split lounge chair. The manager said repairs would be completed quickly, but the report does not confirm that all repairs were finished.
“Some parts of the accommodation were not well maintained and this detracted from the service's homely atmosphere.” from the report
- 01Have all the worn carpets, damaged paintwork, bathroom tiles, radiators and lounge chair identified by inspectors now been repaired or replaced?
- 02How do you check that changes to doctors' medicine instructions are recorded and put into practice promptly?
- 03How will you support my relative to make everyday choices and take reasonable risks safely?
- 04How do you identify signs that a person with communication difficulties is unhappy or worried about their support?
- 05How are support plans reviewed when a person's needs or preferred activities change?
This was a planned inspection of the overall service covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating, following the previous inspection in May 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found major progress since the previous inspection, but medicines, care planning and management still needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 May 2018. The inspector looked at the home, care records, medicines, staffing, training, recruitment and quality checks. They spoke with two people, the new manager, the deputy manager, the provider and three staff members.
The home had improved since its previous Inadequate rating in November 2017. People had more freedom, choice and control. Restrictions had been reviewed, doors were unlocked and people were supported to take part in cooking, cleaning, shopping and other activities.
There were still important shortfalls. A medicine change was not followed up quickly enough and the recorded dose was wrong, although this was found before an incorrect dose was given. People's goals were not recorded in their care plans, and the new manager had only been in post for two days.
The overall rating and all five question ratings were Requires Improvement. The home was taken out of special measures, but CQC kept a registration condition requiring monthly audits and reports, and said it would continue to monitor the home.
Positive staff support
Staff had changed their approach and were doing activities with people rather than doing things for them. Staff also used people's communication methods to understand their wishes.
“Staff were now doing things with people and not for them.” from the report
Improved activities and independence
People took part in shopping, cooking, cleaning, laundry, swimming, dance classes and other activities. Staff supported people to build everyday skills.
“People were now participating and involved in everyday activities.” from the report
Cleaner and safer environment
The home was clean and well maintained. Fire, water temperature and equipment checks were carried out.
“The service was clean and smelled fresh.” from the report
Medicine records and changes
seriousA change made by a doctor was not followed up promptly, and the recorded dose was inaccurate. This was found before an incorrect dose was given, and immediate action was taken.
“The arrangements for managing medicines were not a safe as they should be.” from the report
Care goals not recorded
needs fixingPeople's goals and aspirations had been identified, but they were not written in care plans. This could make it harder for people and staff to work towards them consistently.
“People did not have formal written goals and aspirations in place in their care plans but staff were supporting people towards becoming more independent.” from the report
New management arrangements
needs fixingThere was no registered manager. The new manager had started only two days before the inspection, so the improvements still needed to be shown to continue.
“The registered manager had left the service and a new manager had been appointed.” from the report
Improvements not yet embedded
needs fixingThe more caring and respectful culture was improving but needed to become consistent and lasting across the staff team.
“However, this could be further developed and implemented to make sure this culture was embedded and sustained within the staff team.” from the report
- 01How are medicine changes from doctors checked, recorded and started without delay?
- 02Have each person's goals and aspirations now been added to their care plan, and how are they reviewed?
- 03Is there now a registered manager, and what oversight does the provider provide?
- 04How do you check that the more respectful and person-centred approach is consistent across all staff?
- 05How are behavioural incidents and near misses analysed for patterns and lessons?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole care home, including accommodation, care, staffing, medicines, records and governance, and it considered all five CQC questions. 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 Glover House
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 July 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.