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 carried out on 3 March 2020

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 6 June 2017

During a routine inspection

Glebelands is an extra care housing service run by the London Borough of Merton. The service provides personal care to people living in 33 self-contained flats located in a single building operated by an independent housing provider. At the time of our inspection 32 people were living at Glebelands of whom 28 received personal care. People using the service were aged 50 and over and had a range of needs that included, dementia care, mental ill health, learning and/or physical disabilities and end of life care.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection in July 2014, the overall rating for this service was ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’. The service demonstrated they continued to meet regulations and fundamental standards.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People continued to be safe being supported by staff who worked at Glebelands. There were robust procedures in place to safeguard people from harm and abuse. Staff were familiar with how to recognise and report abuse. The provider assessed and managed risks to people’s safety in a way that considered their individual needs. There were enough staff to keep people safe and recruitment procedures were designed to prevent people from being cared for by unsuitable staff. Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.

Staff received relevant training and were supported by managers to help them to meet people's needs effectively. Staff knew people well and had a good awareness and understanding of their needs, preferences and wishes. People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their dietary needs. They also received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access community healthcare services.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect and ensured people’s privacy was maintained. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People continued to receive personalised support that was responsive to their individual needs. Each person had an up to date, personalised care plan, which set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff. This meant people were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their needs, preferences and interests. Managers reviewed people’s needs regularly to ensure current support arrangements continued to meet these.

The registered manager continued to provide good leadership and the management team led by example. People were satisfied with the support they received from staff. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy about any aspect of the support they received. The provider maintained arrangements to deal with people’s complaints appropriately. Regular checks and reviews of the service continued to be made by managers to ensure people Glebelands experienced good quality safe care and support at all times.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 22 July 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which looks at the overall quality of the service.

This was an announced inspection. We told the provider 48 hours before our inspection that we would be coming.

Glebelands is an extra care housing service that offers accommodation for up to 33 older people who require varying amounts of care and support. The accommodation is purpose built and consists of 33 self-contained flats and some shared facilities such as a communal dining area, a games room and garden. There were 29 people using the service when we visited.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.


People told us they were happy living at Glebelands. They also told us staff were kind and caring, and our observations and discussions with care managers and commissioners from the local authority supported this. We saw staff treated people with dignity and respect. 

There were appropriate numbers of staff employed to meet people’s needs. Staff received regular training and were familiar with people’s individual needs and preferences. They had the skills, knowledge and support required to meet people’s needs.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. People were involved in developing their care plans, and we saw people were supported to make decisions about the care and support they received. We saw staff supported people to be independent.

Staff supported people to attend health care appointments with their GP and other healthcare professionals to ensure peoples and health care needs were met.

There was a clear management structure at Glebelands and people who lived there and staff felt the manager was approachable and competent. The manager demonstrated a good understanding of their role and responsibilities. People using the service, staff and community professionals felt the manager was open to suggestions on how to improve the service.  

There were systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the safety and quality of the service provided. We saw that appropriate action was taken in response to incidents and steps were taken to reduce the risk of incidents reoccurring. 

Inspection carried out on 16 April 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people using the service. People spoke positively about their experiences of the care and support they had received. One person said �Carers are good. I�ve got no worries�. Another person told us �I�m very happy with the general care�. One person said about staff �they have the right skills to look after me�. Another person said �staff always ask if you want anything else done. They don�t make you feel uncomfortable or embarrassed about anything�. People told us staff spoke with them about their care and support needs. One person said �it was discussed with me what care I would get and then it was up to me to decide, to say yes or no�. Another person said �I can agree how care is delivered and I can say no if I don�t want things�.

We looked at the plans in place to care for and support people using the service. We saw people�s specific needs were clearly identified, with guidance for staff about how these would be met. We also saw people�s care and support needs were regularly reviewed by appropriate healthcare professionals. People using the service were asked for their views and experiences and these were acted on. People we spoke with felt safe where they lived.

Staff received training to keep their skills and knowledge up to date. Staff carried out regular checks to ensure that people�s care and support needs were being met and people were happy with the care and support they received.

Inspection carried out on 11 July 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with people who use the service to find out what people thought about the quality of care and support they received. One person told us they got a lot of choice about what they wanted in respect of their care and support. Some people told us staff were friendly and treated them well. One person said �Carers are nice. They treat you with dignity and respect�. Another person told us staff were �happy� which in turn made them feel happy. They also told us they felt �lucky� to live here. The majority of people we spoke with told us they liked the food. One person said the food was �very good�. Another person told us if they didn�t like what was on the menu they could speak to the cook who would make them something different to eat.

Inspection carried out on 24 November 2011

During a routine inspection

We spoke to seventeen people who use the service during our unannounced visit.

Their comments included �I like it�, �I�m satisfied � perfectly happy�, �all very nice�, �there�s nowhere better� and �it�s a lot better than where I came from�. One person said �When I came here, I thought I�d died and gone to heaven � it�s so nice and quiet� and another individual commented �a lovely find this place�.

The majority of people we spoke to felt that staff listened to them and they were given support in the way they wanted it. Feedback included �they�re very amenable � they have taken on board my views�, �they ask us what we like� and �they keep you informed � we are getting on fine�. One individual raised issues about their care and said �sometimes they don�t listen to you�.

Feedback about the staff included �all very nice�, �I�m satisfied with the staff�, �most are first class�, �I like the girls here � they are very kind� and �I like the people here � they are very nice to me�. One person told us that �if they don�t see you around, they come knocking� and another said �I have confidence in them�.

Some people told us that they would like to see more going on within the service with individuals commenting that there used to be more events and activities.