You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 19 April 2018

Glenhurst Manor is a care home that provides residential care for up to 36 older people. The home is a large converted property set in spacious well-maintained grounds. 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. At the time of this inspection there were 22 people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post who had recently been registered with the Commission. The home had been without a registered manager for many months with senior staff acting up into management roles to cover this vacancy. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 31 January and 2 February 2018 and was carried out by two inspectors on the first day of the inspection and one inspector on the second. This comprehensive inspection was brought forward because of concerns that had been raised about the management of the home and the care people received. The concerns were not substantiated at this inspection.

The registered manager had system in place to maintain and promote safety in the home. Environmental risks had been identified and action taken where appropriate. The delivery of people’s care had also been risk assessed to make this as safe for people as possible.

Staff were recruited in line with robust policies and all the necessary checks had been carried out by close of the inspection.

Medicines were well-managed and people received their medicines as prescribed by their doctor.

Staff had received training in safeguarding and were aware of their responsibility to report concerns.

Staff were supported through indirect and formal supervision as well as an annual performance review.

The home was working collaboratively with health services so that people’s needs were met.

People’s consent was sought and granted with regards to the way they were cared for and supported. Where people could not make specific decisions because they lacked mental capacity, staff were following The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and any decisions made in people’s best interests.

The home provided a good standard of food with people having choice of what they wanted to eat and their individual needs catered for.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate in their interactions with people.

Care plans were up to date, reviewed and available to staff.

People were provided with individual and communal activities to keep them occupied, although people felt the levels of activities provided had diminished since there had been a vacancy for the role of activities co-ordinator. This post was in the process of being filled.

Complaints were responded to and the procedure was well-publicised.

People were consulted, or their relatives, about wishes and preferences for end of life needs and staff had received training in this field.

Since the last inspection, the registered manager had ceased working at the home and a new manager had taken over management responsibilities. The new manager had continued to implement the action plan and staff felt there was a more open, supportive culture that had improved the morale of staff to the benefit of people living at the home.

There were auditing and monitoring systems being followed seeking overall improvement.

Inspection areas



Updated 19 April 2018

The service was safe.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding adults and knew how to report concerns.

People�s risks were individually assessed and monitored and action was taken to help keep them safe.

Medicines were stored and managed safely.



Updated 19 April 2018

The service was effective.

People received care from staff who were supported to develop the skills and knowledge they needed to perform their roles effectively.

Staff understood people�s health needs and made prompt referrals to health care professionals when needed.

People�s nutrition and hydration needs were met. They were generally positive about the quality of the food.



Updated 19 April 2018

The service was caring.

Staff consistently treated people with dignity, respect and kindness.

People received care and support from a regular team of staff who knew them well and understood how they liked their care to be delivered.



Updated 19 April 2018

The service was responsive.

People received consistent, personalised care that met their needs. Their care needs were set out in care plans that were regularly reviewed and kept up to date.

People were encouraged to maintain individual interests and a range of activities were provided by staff whilst a new activities coordinator was recruited.

The service had a well-publicised complaints policy and procedure.



Updated 19 April 2018

The service was well-managed.

There was an open and responsive management culture.

Systems were in place to monitor and bring about improvement.