Rated Care Homes

Glenmoor House Care Home

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 7 ratings

    First rated Requires improvement in 2017, most recently Good in November 2024.

  • 23 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 74 of 100

    rated care homes in North Northamptonshire are rated Good, like this one.

Glenmoor House Care Home: inspection record

Care home with nursing, 59 beds, North Northamptonshire

Rated Good in November 2024.

Glenmoor House Care Home: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

  1. G
    Redmond House Good, 0.3 miles away
  2. G
    Welland House - Occupation Road Good, 0.3 miles away
  3. G
    Seagrave House Care Home Good, 0.3 miles away
  4. RI
    Bannigans Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away
  5. O
    Holland House Outstanding, 0.3 miles away

See all care homes in North Northamptonshire

See all care homes in Corby

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 28 November 2024 (assessment visit 9 September 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Glenmoor House Care Home is a care home providing accommodation, nursing, and personal care for up to 59 people. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under a contractual agreement.

  • Safe Good
  • Effective Good
  • Well-led Good
Read the rest of CQC's summary

This assessment was carried out by a team including an Expert by Experience, who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The assessment started on 18 September 2024 and ended on 14 October 2024. We visited the service on 25, 26 September 2024 and 3 October 2024. We assessed 15 quality statements across Safe, Effective and Well-led key questions. At the time of the assessment there were 46 people in residence.

This assessment was prompted in part due to concerns raised about the quality of care people received, medicines management, staffing and the management of the service. We found no evidence to support these concerns and the overall rating for the service has remained ‘good’.

We spoke with people in residence and their visitors, health care professionals, staff, the manager and the provider. We observed how people were being supported and reviewed records for people’s care, staff, and management records.

People’s needs were assessed, managed and kept under review. People received their medicines as prescribed by trained and competent staff. Care plans were personalised and contained up to date guidance for staff to follow. Staff were recruited safely, trained and competent to meet people’s needs. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and protect them from abuse. Agency staff were used regularly whilst staff recruitment was ongoing. Further supervision was needed to oversee agency staff. There was a positive culture within the home, empowering people and staff to speak up without fear. Governance systems were used effectively to monitor care, identify and address areas for improvement. Management acted on concerns and lessons learnt were shared with the staff team.

  1. Safe

    Good

    People felt safe with the staff and the care provided. People were involved with planning their care and support, including managing risks. People received their medicines as prescribed. Management and staff understood their responsibility to protect people from risk of abuse and promote their health, safety and wellbeing.

    The provider followed safe recruitment practices and staff were regularly supervised. There were enough trained, skilled and competent staff on duty to meet people’s care needs. Management were responsive to feedback about some agency staff. More supervision was needed to oversee the agency staff and ensure that they provided care safely and in line with people’s care plans.

    People lived in a clean and tidy environment. Staff were trained and followed the infection prevention and control practices.

    Systems to monitor and respond to accidents and incidents enabled management to identify recurring events which was acted on. Management and staff learnt from safeguarding concerns, accidents, incidents and complaints.

  2. Effective

    Good

    People’s care plans were developed from recognised risk assessment and monitoring tools. People’s needs were reviewed regularly and any changes were reflected in people’s care plans. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and preferences. People had access to healthcare services and support, when needed. People were offered enough to eat and drink to maintain their health. Staff were aware of people’s dietary needs and risks were managed. People were encouraged and supported to make their own decisions where possible and their consent to care and treatment was sought.

    Staff were trained, skilled and knowledgeable in providing effective care that met people’s needs. Staff worked effectively with other external bodies support people to remain healthy and promote positive outcomes.

  3. Well-led

    Good

    The provider had comprehensive governance and assurance systems with clear lines of responsibility and accountability. These included audits and check on the safety and quality of the service.

    There had been changes in management and the home manager in post had begun the process of registering with CQC.

    The provider and management promoted a positive culture of support, learning and development. People and staff felt empowered to speak up and were confident their voices would be heard and acted on. Staff spoke of an inclusive and supportive environment with approachable seniors and management. The management were responsive to issues raised during this assessment.

    Management and staff worked with in partnership with the local authority and health professionals to share learning and help improve the quality of people’s experiences. Positive feedback was received from health professionals and the local authority about the management and staff approach to collaborative working to improve the quality of care provided.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Ask how nursing cover works at night and at weekends.
  2. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
  3. Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.

Registration details

Registered manager
Bethany Whorton
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service with nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Mental Health, Older People, Physical Disability, Sensory Impairment, Younger Adults

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

6 inspection reports, latest 10 May 2023. Latest assessment published 28 November 2024; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Provider
Avery (Glenmoor) LimitedBrand: Avery
Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
09090169 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from North Northamptonshire Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Glenmoor House Care Home provide nursing care?
Yes. The Care Quality Commission lists Glenmoor House Care Home as a care home with nursing.
How many beds does Glenmoor House Care Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 59 beds at Glenmoor House Care Home.
When was Glenmoor House Care Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Glenmoor House Care Home was published on 28 November 2024.
Who runs Glenmoor House Care Home?
Glenmoor House Care Home is run by Avery (Glenmoor) Limited.
What is Glenmoor House Care Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 28 November 2024.