CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glyn Thomas House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, recruitment, infection control and medicines were generally safe, although some risk and medicine records needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems were in place, but they did not identify all important gaps. The provider had also failed to submit some legally required notifications to CQC.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Glyn Thomas House is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe care but weaknesses in management oversight and reporting.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 10 May 2022. One inspector visited the home, spoke with two people, eight relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, there were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, and medicines were generally managed safely. Some risk and medicine records needed clearer information.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led, down from Good at the previous inspection. The provider had not always told CQC about incidents when legally required. Inspectors also found gaps in some care plans, risk assessments, recruitment records and covert medicine plans.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors that the home was safe. Staff understood how to report abuse and protect people from harm.
“The provider had effective safeguarding systems in place and staff had a good understanding of what to do to make sure people were protected from avoidable harm or abuse.” from the report
Medicines were generally safe
Inspectors found that medicines were received, stored, given and returned safely, and people received them as prescribed.
“People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were safely received, stored, administered and returned to pharmacy when they were no longer required.” from the report
Approachable management
Relatives knew the manager and said they could raise concerns. Inspectors also found a positive culture in the home.
“Relative's knew the registered manager well and felt they were approachable.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infection outbreaks, including the safe use of protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Missed legal notifications
seriousThe provider had not always told CQC about incidents that it was legally required to report. This was a breach of Regulation 18.
“The provider had not always submitted notifications about incidents as they are required to do by law.” from the report
Management checks missed gaps
needs fixingThe home's monitoring systems did not identify all gaps in care plans, risk assessments, recruitment records and covert medicine plans.
“However, not all gaps were identified by the registered manager or provider including notifications required to CQC, care plans in relation to health risks, risk assessments for equipment and recruitment and covert medication plans.” from the report
Some medicine records were unclear
needs fixingRecords for medicines given when needed, or given covertly, did not always clearly explain when and how they should be administered.
“People who had 'as and when required' medication and medicines given covertly would benefit from clearer records to document when and how to administer the medicine.” from the report
An induction record was missing
minorThe records did not show that all checks were in place before one person's induction started early.
“However, records in relation to starting one-person's induction early, without all checks being in place, was not in place.” from the report
- 01What action have you taken to make sure all incidents that must be reported to CQC are notified on time?
- 02How have you improved care plans and risk assessments for people's health risks and equipment?
- 03How are you checking that covert medicines and medicines given when needed have clear administration instructions?
- 04What checks are now completed before a new staff member starts an induction?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous inspection, and when will these areas next be reviewed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 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 2020
Glyn Thomas House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some records and staff monitoring needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, staff and the management team. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, kind care, suitable activities and improved checks on quality and safety.
There were some minor shortfalls. These included gaps in some pressure damage records, medicine recording errors, monitoring of senior carers' work and some missing end of life wishes. The issues were discussed with the management team and some were fixed during or after the inspection.
Protection from harm
Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Risks were assessed and action was taken to reduce harm while supporting people's independence.
“People were safeguarded from abuse. Staff were aware of the action they must take if they suspected abuse was occurring.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and their privacy, preferred names, choices and independence were respected.
“People were treated with kindness by the staff. One person told us, "The staff are very good.” from the report
Food and health support
People's dietary needs were assessed and monitored. Staff supported eating and drinking and contacted health professionals when concerns arose.
“People's nutritional needs were assessed and monitored. People's special dietary needs were catered for and a balanced diet was provided.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had improved its quality monitoring since the previous inspection. Safety checks were carried out and action was taken when problems were found.
“The provider had improved their auditing and monitoring of the service.” from the report
Pressure care records
needs fixingSome people at risk of pressure damage had gaps in their paperwork on some days. The registered manager addressed this immediately.
“We found some people at risk of developing pressure damage to their skin had gap's in their paperwork on some days.” from the report
Medicine recording
needs fixingInspectors found a missed signature on one medicine record and an unclear date for a medicine change. These issues were addressed by the registered manager.
“One person's medicine administration record (MAR) had not been signed on one day and the date a change occurred on one person's MAR was not clear.” from the report
Senior carer monitoring
minorInspectors received feedback that the way senior carers allocated and carried out their work needed monitoring. The management team began monitoring this.
“We received feedback that monitoring of how senior carers allocated and undertook their work was required.” from the report
End of life wishes
needs fixingSome people's wishes about end of life care had not been recorded. New paperwork was being introduced and a further review was taking place.
“Some people's end of life wishes were not recorded. New documentation was being introduced and a further review of people's wishes was being undertaken.” from the report
Protective clothing and dignity
minorStaff had used protective aprons in a way that did not promote people's dignity. The registered manager dealt with this immediately.
“During the inspection aprons to protect people's clothing were used by staff in a way that did not promote their dignity.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that pressure damage records are completed every day for people at risk?
- 02What checks make sure medicine administration records are signed and medicine changes are dated clearly?
- 03How are senior carers' work allocation and duties being monitored?
- 04How will you record, review and update my relative's end of life wishes?
- 05How do you make sure staff protect people's dignity when using aprons or other protective clothing?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions for the care home; personal care in the community was not undertaken. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 March 2020 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 Glyn Thomas House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- May 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 February 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
12 live-in carers within about an hour of North East Lincolnshire
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 £1,350 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.