You are here

Glebelands Requires improvement

We are carrying out a review of quality at Glebelands. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 3 April 2020

About the service

Glebelands is an ‘extra care’ housing scheme that provides personal care and support to people living in their own flats in a single multi-occupancy building. The adapted building comprises of 32 self-contained flats which are managed by the London Borough of Merton. Anchor/Hanover housing association own the building and as the property’s landlord was responsible for its maintenance.

At the time of our inspection, 28 people aged 55 and over were receiving personal care and support at the scheme. Some people using the service were living with dementia, had a learning disability or autism, mental health problems and/or had complex physical health care needs. Three people currently living at Glebelands did not receive any personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service

Most people we spoke with told us they continued to be happy living at Glebelands and with the quality of the personal care and support they received there.

However, we found the service was not always well-led. This was because the provider’s governance processes were not robust enough to demonstrate the quality and safety of the service people received was always effectively managed. For example, the provider’s governance systems did not include regular audits of training staff had completed, which led to large gaps in staff records been left unnoticed.

In addition, we found the registered manager condition was not being met. Although the service had an acting manager who had been in operational day-to-day charge for the last 12 months, they had not applied to be registered with us. This meant the service had not had a manager registered with the CQC for over a year and still did not have a registered person in charge who could be held legally responsible for how the service was run and for the quality and safety of the care they provided.

We discussed this issue with the manager during our inspection who told us they had now made up their mind to remain as the service’s manager and would be applying to register with us in the next couple of weeks. Progress made by the manager to achieve this stated aim will be closely monitored by the CQC.

We also found, although managers and staff understood the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), they did not always ensure people were given information in a way they could understand. We have made a recommendation about the provider following AIS to make sure people with communication difficulties are always given information in a way they can easily understand.

The service was safe. There were systems and processes to protect people from the risk of abuse. People were cared for by staff who knew how to prevent or manage risk in a person-centred way. This kept people safe, while not restricting their freedom. There were sufficient numbers of staff whose suitability to work with people had been thoroughly checked. People received their medicines as they were prescribed. Staff followed relevant national guidelines regarding infection control and basic food hygiene.

People benefited from being cared for and supported by staff who were well-trained and supported. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People continued to be supported to stay healthy and well and have access to the relevant community health care professionals.

People received care and support from staff who were kind, empathetic and respectful. Staff took the time to get to know people well and understand their preferences and wishes. People were treated equally and had their human rights and diversity respected, including t

Inspection areas



Updated 3 April 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 3 April 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 3 April 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 3 April 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 April 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.