CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Glades at Moorville
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the home’s quality checks needed improvement.
This was the home’s first CQC inspection since it registered in November 2015. The announced inspection took place on 11 July 2017. Inspectors spoke with a resident, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also reviewed care records, staff records, audits, meeting notes and accident reports.
Inspectors rated Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive as Good. They found enough skilled staff, detailed care plans, respectful and person-centred support, suitable food and good access to health care. People were supported to make choices and take part in activities and community life.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The home had quality checks, but these did not always identify gaps in medicines guidance, best-interest records, or the review of accidents and incidents. The manager took immediate action after the inspection to address these issues.
Kind and person-centred care
Inspectors found a strong caring culture. Staff understood people’s preferences, communication and need for privacy, and supported them to make choices.
“There was an extremely strong person centred and caring culture in the home.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans described people’s lives, choices, routines, communication and support needs. They were reviewed and updated when needs changed.
“The service was responsive to people's needs for care, treatment and support.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough skilled and experienced staff. Staff had training, supervision and support to carry out their roles.
“We found there were enough staff with the right skills, knowledge and experience to meet people's needs.” from the report
Respect and dignity
Staff supported people sensitively and respected their privacy, personal space and preferred ways of communicating.
“People who used the service were treated with respect and dignity at all times.” from the report
As-needed medicines guidance
seriousSome protocols for PRN medicines did not explain in enough detail how people showed they were in pain or needed the medicine. The manager said this was reviewed immediately after the inspection.
“However, we found that people did not always have a detailed "protocol" in place.” from the report
Accident and incident reviews
needs fixingAccidents and incidents were recorded, but the home was not analysing patterns, trends or lessons to help prevent them happening again. The manager took immediate action after the inspection.
“However, the registered manager was not recording and monitoring the actions that should be taken to prevent the incident reoccurring.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingThe home did not always record capacity assessments or best-interest decisions when supporting people with medicines or finances. The manager took immediate action to address this.
“Assessments had not always been made regarding people's capacity to consent to care and treatment, or records kept of any 'best interest' decisions made on their behalf.” from the report
Quality auditing
needs fixingThe home had audits, but these did not always find gaps in documentation and processes. Inspectors recommended improving and embedding the auditing systems.
“The systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service required further improvements, and embedding into practice, to ensure they were fully effective.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to the PRN medicines protocols after the inspection, and how are they checked now?
- 02How do you record capacity assessments and best-interest decisions for medicines and financial support?
- 03How are accidents and incidents analysed for patterns, lessons and actions to prevent them happening again?
- 04What quality audits are now used to identify gaps in records and care processes?
- 05How will you show that the improvements identified after this first inspection have been maintained?
This was an announced first inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 August 2017 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 The Glades at Moorville
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- August 2017Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Sheffield
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 £1,270 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.