CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bablake House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, testing, PPE, admissions and visiting arrangements. They were only somewhat assured about premises hygiene because rust was found on two bath hoists and flooring needed resealing.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control practice but some premises repairs were needed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
The home had up-to-date infection policies and risk assessments. Staff and residents had access to testing, vaccination records and COVID-19 information were maintained, and staff were seen using protective equipment correctly.
Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements. They were only somewhat assured about the layout and hygiene of the premises because two bath hoists had rust and flooring in a store needed resealing. The manager took action after this was raised.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a new quality rating.
Infection-control planning
The home had current policies and risk assessments intended to reduce infection risks.
“Detailed and up to date policies and risk assessments were in place to reduce the risk of infection to people living at the home.” from the report
Testing and records
People living at the home and staff could access testing. Records covered vaccination status, isolation periods and test results.
“Systems were in place to record individual's COVID-19 vaccination status, isolation periods and COVID-19 test results.” from the report
Use of protective equipment
Staff were observed using PPE appropriately, and the manager checked that practice matched staff training.
“Staff were observed wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home used a booking system and had designated visiting spaces to manage safety.
“The home operated a booking system for visitors to manage the risk and safety of people.” from the report
Premises needed repairs
minorInspectors saw rust on two bath hoists and found that flooring in a domestic store needed resealing. The manager took action after inspectors raised this.
“we observed rust on the foot plates of 2 bath hoists and the flooring in the domestic's storeroom needed to be resealed.” from the report
- 01Have the two bath hoists with rust on their foot plates now been repaired or replaced?
- 02Has the flooring in the domestic storeroom been resealed?
- 03How does the home currently check that staff use PPE correctly?
- 04How are visitors currently booked and where do visits take place?
- 05How does the home manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2022 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, August 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found people were generally well supported, but risk records and management checks were not always reliable.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 14 July 2020. Inspectors looked only at Safe, Effective and Well-led. They spoke with people, staff and a relative, observed care, and checked care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective. People received support with food, drink and healthcare. Staff were trained and people said staff knew what they were doing. Consent and mental capacity processes were also found to be followed.
Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Risk plans were missing in some cases, some environmental risks were found, and medicines and quality checks needed stronger oversight. The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. New staff were also being recruited to support more consistent care from familiar staff.
“Enough staff were on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Food and drink
People spoke positively about the food. Their dietary preferences were considered and staff supported people with eating and drinking.
“People spoke positively about the food and drinks provided.” from the report
Infection control
The home was clean and staff followed infection control procedures, including using protective equipment.
“Staff completed infection control training and practiced good infection control.” from the report
Consent and rights
The home followed the Mental Capacity Act processes described in the report. Staff sought consent and recorded best-interest decisions when needed.
“People confirmed, and we saw, staff sought consent before they provided care and support.” from the report
Missing risk guidance
seriousRisk plans were not always completed to guide staff. One person with a urinary catheter did not have a plan explaining how to manage related risks, although this was addressed during the inspection.
“During our visit risk management plans were not always in place to help staff provide safe care.” from the report
Medicines records and policy
needs fixingOpened dates were not recorded on prescribed creams, so the home could not show they would be discarded at the right time. The medicines policy also needed updating.
“Prescribed creams were not always managed in line with best practice because the date when creams had been opened was not recorded.” from the report
Weaknesses in audits
needs fixingSome quality checks did not identify problems with medicines or the environment. A handrail was not securely fixed, and environment audits had not checked hallways.
“Medication audits had not identified the provider's medicines policy did not reflect best practice guidance and current legislation.” from the report
Training gaps
needs fixingStaff knew how to manage risks generally, but had not received all the training needed to support people with diabetes and Parkinson's disease.
“Whilst staff knew how to manage risks, they had not received the training needed to ensure they could support people to manage specific health conditions including diabetes and Parkinson's disease.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every person has a current risk plan, including people with catheters or a history of falls?
- 02How do you record when creams are opened, and how do you check that medicines are managed according to the updated policy?
- 03What training have staff now completed for supporting people with diabetes and Parkinson's disease?
- 04How do your environment checks now identify risks such as blocked exits, unsafe handrails and poorly checked hallways?
- 05What action has been taken since the overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not assessed and no new ratings were given for them. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 2020 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 Bablake House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 June 2016.
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 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Coventry
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“My mum would not eat, drink, bath nor sleep without her. In short, she was FAMILY and we loved her dearly”
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.