CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Glades
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2019
The Glades was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with only minor record-keeping and accessibility work noted.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 29 July 2019. One inspector spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals. They observed care and a lunchtime meal, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, clean surroundings and staff who understood people's needs.
People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities. Care plans were personalised and updated when needs changed. The management team used audits and lessons from incidents to improve the service.
This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published on 27 February 2017. The home was registered for 12 people and nine people were living there. Its size was larger than current best practice guidance, but inspectors said the design and staff approach reduced any negative impact.
Kind and knowledgeable staff
Staff knew people well and understood their needs. Inspectors saw kind and caring support, and relatives said they had confidence in staff.
“People received support from staff who knew them well, understood their needs, and were kind and caring.” from the report
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on each shift. Staffing levels were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“There were enough staff on each shift to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was planned around people's preferences, routines and goals. People were supported to make choices and become more independent.
“People received care and support that was person-centred.” from the report
Activities and community life
People took part in group and individual activities, went out locally and were supported to maintain relationships and interests.
“There were a range of group and individual activities taking place each day.” from the report
Management oversight
The provider and manager used regular audits and a lessons-learned process. They recorded actions when checks identified improvements.
“The provider and registered manager had good oversight of the service.” from the report
Home size
minorThe home was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building design and staff approach reduced any negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
Some charts were not signed
minorAn audit found that some food and fluid chart entries were not signed. The home had reminded staff about the need for clear records.
“The daily chart audit had identified that some entries on food and fluid charts were not signed.” from the report
Accessible complaints information
minorThe manager was considering changes to the complaints procedure so it would work better for people with different communication methods.
“The registered manager told us they were currently looking at how they could change the format of the complaints procedure to ensure it was accessible to people with varying communication methods.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure food and fluid charts are completed and signed every time?
- 02How would you support my relative if they need information in an easy-read or pictorial format?
- 03How often would bank or agency staff support my relative, and how do you make sure they know their individual needs?
- 04How would you involve us in updating the care plan if my relative's health or communication needs changed?
- 05What activities and local outings would be suitable for my relative's interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the premises, care and all five CQC questions; all five ratings were given and remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 August 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, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with effective management and no reported breaches.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 February 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care records, medicines, staff files and quality checks.
Inspectors found that people were safe and supported by enough trained staff. Medicines were managed properly. People had access to health services, were supported to make choices and received care that respected their dignity, communication needs and independence.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection in October 2014 had rated the home Good overall, but Responsive had required improvement. This inspection found improvement in that area.
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, goals, communication methods and support needs. Staff knew people well and helped them make choices and stay independent.
“People were supported to have their assessed needs, preferences and choices met by staff that had the necessary skills and knowledge.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw a calm atmosphere and positive relationships. Staff treated people as individuals and respected their dignity, rights and cultural needs.
“Staff spoke to people in a caring and positive way, treated people with respect and were mindful of their rights and dignity.” from the report
Health and medicines
The home had arrangements for medicines, including as-needed medicines. People could access a range of health professionals, and staff advocated for them when needed.
“People had access to a good range of health care services and staff actively advocated for people if they felt health care services were not as responsive as they should be.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits to check care planning, medicines, infection control and other areas. Inspectors saw that identified actions were followed up.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently check that as-needed medicines are given safely and recorded correctly?
- 02How do staff find out when someone is in pain or unwell if they cannot communicate verbally?
- 03Which activities and community visits are available now, and how are people's current choices recorded?
- 04How are families involved in care reviews and decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act or Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?
- 05What recent issues have your quality audits identified, and what action was taken?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five rating areas, including care, staffing, medicines, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 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
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 December 2010.
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
97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham
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. 80 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.