CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 199 Burton Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Relatives said people were safe. Inspectors found individual risk assessments, safeguarding procedures, safe recruitment, enough staff and safe medicines management.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, supervision and appraisals. People's food, drink, healthcare and legal rights under the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people's likes and dislikes and treated them with kindness. Inspectors saw people being supported with their privacy, dignity, personal appearance and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and included communication needs, preferences and professional advice. People were supported with family relationships, interests, activities and different ways of communicating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular audits, staff meetings and quality checks. Relatives and staff spoke positively about the manager, and the previous governance breach had been addressed.
What inspectors found, April 2018
Aspire in the Community - 199 Burton Road is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with limited end-of-life planning information to improve.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 13 and 21 February 2018. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors observed care, spoke with relatives, staff and managers, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, good support with food and healthcare, respectful care and activities that reflected people's interests.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement overall in January 2017, with a breach about governance. Inspectors found that the required improvements had been made, including better staff appraisals and audits. However, care plans contained limited information about people's end-of-life wishes, and the manager agreed to improve this.
Safe medicines
Inspectors observed medicines being given carefully and found accurate medicine records, secure storage and regular checks.
“Medicines were well managed and medicine administration records were audited.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received induction, mandatory training, supervision and appraisals. Inspectors found they understood people's needs and how to support them.
“This demonstrated staff received training to help them develop the skills needed to deliver effective support and care.” from the report
Kind and personal care
Staff knew people well, communicated in suitable ways and supported personal choices, privacy, dignity and independence.
“We saw staff were caring and took a genuine interest in the people they supported.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were supported to go out, maintain interests and spend time with family. The home provided a car for appointments and leisure activities.
“People were supported to maintain their interests and activities.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had introduced regular audits and action plans. Inspectors found that the governance problem identified at the previous inspection had been improved.
“At this inspection we found a number of improvements had been made relating to staff annual appraisal and audit.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
needs fixingCare plans contained very limited information about people's personal end-of-life wishes. The manager agreed to discuss and record these wishes with relatives.
“We found care plans contained very limited information regarding person centred end of life wishes.” from the report
- 01How have you kept staff appraisals and audit actions up to date since this inspection?
- 02How will you discuss and record my relative's end-of-life wishes?
- 03How would you communicate with my relative if they could not speak verbally?
- 04What activities and outings could you support my relative to continue or start?
- 05How will my family be kept informed and involved in my relative's care?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 April 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but weaknesses in staff checks, records and quality monitoring.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 January 2017. The inspector observed care, spoke with the manager and staff, contacted relatives, looked around the home and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was caring and responsive. Staff knew people well, treated them with dignity and offered personalised support. Medicines were managed safely, people were supported with food, drink and health appointments, and there were systems to protect people from harm.
The home was not consistently safe, effective or well-led. Some staff checks were incomplete before work began. Some training needed updating, staff did not receive annual appraisals, and some care plans and handover information were not up to date. Quality checks did not make sure problems were fixed promptly.
The overall rating of Requires Improvement means the home was not failing in every area, but inspectors found important improvements were needed. The previous rating was Good, and the earlier problem about consent to care and treatment had been addressed.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were seen treating people with dignity and respect. They used patient communication and had positive relationships with the people living at the home.
“We saw staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Safe medicines arrangements
The medicines checked were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff had training and competency checks before managing medicines.
“We checked and found people's medicines were managed so that they received them safely.” from the report
Support with health and nutrition
People were supported to eat and drink enough and to attend healthcare appointments. Records showed involvement from health professionals.
“We checked and found people were supported to maintain good health, have access to healthcare services and receive ongoing healthcare support.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousSome required recruitment information was not obtained before staff started. One potential risk identified by a DBS check had not been assessed by the manager.
“We found for one member of staff the DBS had identified potential risks regarding the staff member.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousAudits did not reliably record when problems were fixed. Some maintenance actions had remained outstanding for four months, and other identified improvements had not been followed up.
“We found there was a process of assessing and monitoring quality, but this did not follow a plan where actions identified were followed up and recorded as completed to show the auditing had been effective.” from the report
Staff development gaps
needs fixingSome training needed updating and staff did not receive annual appraisals. This limited the home's ability to check performance and plan future development.
“A system was not in place for staff to receive appriasal to assess their performance in the last twelve months and focus on future objectives, opportunities and resources needed.” from the report
Limited activities and unrecorded handovers
needs fixingPeople were not always taking part in activities listed in their plans. Shift handovers were not recorded, so important information could potentially be missed.
“We were not able to verify the information passed from shift to shift as handovers were not recorded.” from the report
- 01What checks are now completed before a new staff member starts, including how any DBS risks are assessed?
- 02Which staff training was overdue at the inspection, and has all of it now been completed?
- 03Are annual staff appraisals now taking place, and how are actions from them recorded?
- 04How do you make sure care plans and risk assessments are reviewed and kept up to date?
- 05How do you record handovers and make sure planned activities are delivered?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including observations, discussions and checks of care, medicines, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of 199 Burton Road
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 November 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 99 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnsley
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Ivy was very kind and gentle in all her dealings with my late mother. They got on very well and were able to share a joke and a laugh.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.