The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Glendon House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2 Carr Lane, Overstrand, Cromer, Norfolk, NR27 0PS (01263) 578173

Provided and run by:
Glendon House Limited

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

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Dates of inspection: 17 March to 9 April 2026. The service is a residential care home providing support to older people and younger adults, mainly living with dementia. We carried out this inspection due to the age of the rating. We previously inspected the service in April 2018.

At this inspection, shortfalls were identified within the governance system which meant there was a lack of monitoring and oversight of how the service was performing. The systems in place did not identify some of the shortfalls we identified as part of this inspection, including environmental issues. Audits were not consistently being completed, which meant risks were not being identified or addressed in a timely way. Those that were completed failed to identify issues such as gaps in monitoring records. There was poor identification and management of themes, trends and lessons learnt meaning opportunities for improvement were missed. The system for recording staff training and competencies was incomplete and did not give oversight of this area. Meetings were not all being recorded. Overall, this meant we were not assured the Nominated Individual and registered manager had complete understanding of how well the service was being run and where improvements were needed. The management team were responsive to concerns raised as part of this inspection and made changes to give better oversight of the audit schedule, improve system for capturing lessons learnt and recording of training and competencies.

However, the service demonstrated a caring culture, with positive relationships between staff, people and relatives. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect and staff knew them well, supporting their preferences and independence. People were offered choice in their care and were encouraged and supported to maintain relations with their family and friends, where this was their wish.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and people were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks to people’s wellbeing. The environment was clean and well-maintained. The provider supported and valued the staff which helped promote wellbeing and positive morale.

The service was integrated into the local community with visits from local schools, a beautician, hairdresser and pastors from the local church. People went to classes in the community and a fete was held within the grounds. The activities team led a variety of events for people from exercise classes and music, to visits from animals, entertainers and themed events including Easter, VE day and ‘staycation’ exploring 6 different countries. There were trips out to the beach and local attractions.

People were involved in decisions about their care and knew how to give feedback or raise concerns and were confident it was taken seriously and acted upon.

The management team and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Managers were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying and harassment.

We have found the provider was in breach of good governance and have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.

4 March 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Glendon House is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 36 people aged 65 or over, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of the inspection 28 people were living in the home.

We found the following examples of good practice:

All visitors had their temperature taken and asked to sanitise their hands prior to entering the home. Visitors were also required to put on their Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in the porch area. There was clear signage on the exterior of the building. This advised visitors not to enter if they had any symptoms of COVID-19, what PPE to wear and to maintain social distancing.

Staff were observed to be wearing the correct PPE and were encouraging people to maintain social distancing.

People were supported to maintain contact with their relatives. In the summer people were able to see their relatives in a marquee outside. The provider also purchased a wooden cabin to facilitate visits. The cabin was divided into two separate areas with a perspex screen in place which could be removed. People were also able to receive window visits and maintain contact with their relatives via telephone and video-calling.

When staff arrived for work, they used a separate entrance to an office area. This separate area allowed for staff to change into their uniform and put on their PPE before entering the home.

People living in the service and staff were tested for COVID-19 at the intervals stipulated by the government’s testing guidelines.

24 April 2018

During a routine inspection

Glendon House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and 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. Glendon House accommodates up to 36 people, some of whom may be living with dementia, in one adapted building. At the time of our comprehensive unannounced inspection on 24 April 2018 there were 29 people living in the home.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People were cared for in a compassionate way by staff who understood their care needs. People and their relatives were involved in the planning of their care and people’s care records reflected their personal preferences. People’s care records were reviewed regularly and updated when people’s care needs changed. Assessments were carried out prior to people living in Glendon House to ascertain if the service was the most suitable for them.

Support from other professionals was sought where concerns were identified about a person’s health or wellbeing needs. Information about people’s healthcare needs was shared appropriately with other professionals to ensure continuity of care.

Staff supported people to be as independent as possible and people would assist staff with daily tasks in the home. Adapted equipment to aid independent eating and mobilising was provided for people.

People were cared for in a way that promoted their dignity and privacy and staff took steps to ensure that this was maintained.

The CQC is required to monitor the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. MCA assessments had been carried out and staff understood the importance of giving people choice about their care.

Risks to people and within the environment were identified and continually assessed. Staff understood how to mitigate people’s individual risks and what their responsibilities were in relation to maintaining a safe environment. People’s dependency was regularly assessed to inform the number of staff required to support them safely. There were consistently enough staff deployed to care for people.

People’s medicines were stored, administered and managed in a safe way. Records relating to people’s medicines were complete and staff had undertaken training in the safe management of medicines.

The home was clean throughout and staff observed infection control procedures. The kitchen was clean and safe food hygiene practices were in place.

Mealtimes were a relaxed and people were given a choice of meals. People’s meals were prepared according to their nutritional needs. Monitoring of people’s food and fluid intake was in place where people were at risk of not maintaining a healthy nutritional intake.

Staff understood what constituted abuse and what procedure they would follow to report any concerns. Staff also received training in safeguarding. Recruitment processes ensured that appropriate employment checks were carried out to ensure suitable staff were employed.

Staff received training relevant to their role and were supported to access further training to develop their knowledge and practice. There was an induction programme in place for new staff which included shadowing experienced staff and the completion of the provider’s mandatory training.

There was a variety of activities provided for people to take part in and staff had enough time to engage with people to follow their interests. People were supported to maintain relationships with their family and friends. There were no restrictions about when people could have visitors and there were a number of communal rooms where people and their visitors could spend time together.

There was clear and visible leadership in place. The registered manager was approachable and visible, as was the deputy manager and area manager. Staff felt supported in their role and the morale amongst the staff was good.

There were processes in place to involve people and their relatives in the running of the home. Further improvements were planned to ensure that people’s views on the service were sought and acted upon.

A range of effective quality monitoring systems were in place to monitor and assess the quality of service being delivered. Action was taken where shortfalls had been identified.