• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Glencairn House Retirement Home

Overall: Good

16-17 Cornwall Road, Dorchester, Dorset, DT1 1RU (01305) 268399

Provided and run by:
Mr Damian Salter and Mr Daniel Salter

The provider of this service changed. See new profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 11 March 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 12 February 2021 and was announced.

Overall inspection


Updated 11 March 2021

The inspection took place on 15 and 16 October 2018 and was unannounced.

Glencairn House Retirement Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Glencairn House Retirement Home is registered to accommodate 23 older people. The Home is split over three floors with the first and second floor having access via stairs or lift. On the ground floor there is a large lounge which leads into a dining room. There was level access to the outside patio area at the rear. There were 23 people living at the home at the time of inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People were protected from avoidable harm as staff received training and understood how to recognise signs of abuse and who to report this to if abuse was suspected.

Staffing levels were adequate to provide safe care and recruitment checks had ensured staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Staff had received an induction and continual learning that enabled them to carry out their role effectively.

Staff received regular supervision and felt supported and confident in their work.

When people were at risk staff had access to assessments and understood the actions needed to minimise avoidable harm.

Medicines were administered and managed safely by trained and competent staff. Medication stock checks took place together with daily and monthly audits to ensure safety with medicines.

Staff were clear on their responsibilities with regards to infection prevention and control and this contributed to keeping people safe.

Accident and incidents were all recorded and analysed by the registered manager. Lessons learnt were shared with staff through monthly meetings.

People and their relatives had been involved in assessments of care needs and had their choices and wishes respected including access to healthcare when required.

The service worked well with professionals such as doctors, occupational therapists and social workers.

People had their eating and drinking needs understood and were being met. People had mixed views about the quality, variety and quantity of the food.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The registered manager actively sought to work in partnership with other organisations to improve outcomes for people using the service.

People, their relatives and professionals described the staff as caring, kind and approachable. People had their dignity, privacy and independence respected.

People had their care needs met by staff who were knowledgeable about how they were able to communicate their needs. Their life histories were detailed and relatives had been consulted.

The home had an effective complaints process and people were aware of it and knew how to make a complaint. The home actively encouraged feedback from people, their relatives and professionals.

People’s end of life needs were assessed and detailed. Records showed that people and their relatives had been involved in these plans. Feedback received by the service showed that end of life care provided was of a good standard.

Activities were provided and these included staff, people and their relatives. Individual activities were provided for those that preferred them.

Relatives and professionals had confidence in the service. The home had an open and positive culture that encouraged the involvement of everyone.

Leadership was visible within the home. Staff spoke positively about the management team and felt supported.

There were effective quality assurance and auditing processes in place and they contributed to service improvements. Action plans were carried out and lessons learnt.

The service understood their legal responsibilities for reporting and sharing information with other services.