The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Glebe House Retirement Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Rectory Road, Hollesley, Woodbridge, Suffolk, IP12 3JS (01394) 410298

Provided and run by:
Prime Residential Care Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Glebe House Retirement Home is a residential care service which supports older people some of whom may be living with dementia. It is located in the village ofHollesley and can support up to 20 people.There were 19 people living in the service at the time of our inspection.We visited the service on 5 February and 4 March 2026.

 People were supported by caring staff who demonstrated empathy and understanding of older people and people living with dementia. Staff knew people well and were able to describe the needs of the people they supported, and the help they required. 

The building and some of the furnishings had become tired and required updating. We discussed this with the provider on our first visit,and we found some improvements on our second visit. The provider had also put a plan in place for further improvements.

People and their relatives told us that the management team were approachable, and they were able to discuss any concerns with them. However, the provider had recently introduced an electronic care planning system.A review of care records did not demonstrate that people had been fully involved in their care planning.This meant that the service may not always be aware of people’s wishes and preferences.

The registered manager investigated accidents and monitored them for trends.The outcomes of investigations were fed back to the staff team as learning.However, investigations would benefit from being more in depth and recording the reasons conclusions were arrived at. Audits covered a variety of areas including infection control and medicines. However, they did no tidentify some of the concerns found on our inspection visits.

We discussed the findings of this inspection with the registered manager and the provider who were receptive to our feedback and demonstrated a commitment to improvement.

11 August 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Glebe House Retirement Home provides accommodation and personal care and support for up to 20 older people. The adapted building has accommodation over three floors. The service is supporting a range of people’s needs, including people living with dementia. Nursing care is not provided at Glebe House Retirement Home.

We found the following examples of good practice.

Visitors did not access the service building. Pre-planned visits took place in a marque in the garden.

The activities co-ordinator had taken photos of people wearing masks and social distancing in the local community to keep people up to date with what was happening in the area.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

15 May 2018

During a routine inspection

Glebe House Retirement Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. This service does not provide nursing care. Glebe House Retirement Home accommodates up to 19 adults.

There were 15 older people, some living with dementia, living in the service when we inspected on 15 May 2018. This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection.

This service had previously been owned by another provider, it was registered under the current provider in May 2017. This was the service’s first inspection under the new provider.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

There were systems in place to provide people with a safe service. Staff were trained and understood how to safeguard people from abuse. Risks to people were assessed and staff were provided with guidance about how to minimise risks. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and this was kept under review. Recruitment processes were robust to check that prospective staff were suitable to work in the service. Medicines were managed safely. There were infection control systems in place to reduce the risk of cross contamination. The service learned from incidents and used them to drive improvement.

Staff worked with other professionals involved in people’s care to provide people with an effective and consistent service. People had access to health professionals when needed. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and met. 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 environment was appropriate for people using the service. Staff were trained and supported to meet people’s needs effectively.

People were treated with care and compassion by the staff. People’s privacy and independence was promoted and respected. People’s preferences and views were listened to and valued.

People’s care was assessed, planned for and met. Care records guided staff in how people’s preferences and needs were met. People had access to social activities to reduce the risks of isolation and boredom. Where people had made decisions about their end of life care, this was documented. There was a complaints procedure in place and people’s complaints were addressed and used to improve the service.

The service had systems in place to monitor and improve the service provided to people. The quality assurance systems helped the provider and the registered manager to independently identify and address shortfalls in the service. The views of people, staff and visitors were valued and used to improve the service. As a result the service continued to improve.