CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Barclay House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. This included safe admissions, testing, protective equipment, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Barclay House was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 19 August 2020. Inspectors looked only at infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and possible outbreaks safely. The home also kept records of decisions and guidance during the pandemic.
The inspection did not give an overall quality rating. It only found that the home was following infection prevention and control procedures, so it does not provide a full assessment of care, staffing or management.
Careful infection control records
The home kept a detailed incident log of decisions and actions during the pandemic. Inspectors said this helped the home understand and learn from its decisions.
“This was a helpful chronology serving many purposes.” from the report
Testing and admissions
The home used regular testing, tested new and returning staff, and waited for test results before admitting people from hospital.
“No-one was admitted to the service from hospital until their test result was confirmed.” from the report
Monitoring isolation
The home tracked isolation periods, tests and results for people at greater risk of having the virus.
“This ensured effective monitoring of those who were most at risk of having the virus.” from the report
Support during lockdown
Specialist staff supported people to cope with lockdown and considered different communication methods when masks made communication harder.
“Inhouse specialist staff such as psychologists and speech and language therapists undertook individual work with people to support them cope with and adapt to the lockdown restrictions.” from the report
Enhanced cleaning
Housekeeping staff focused on cleaning people's rooms and commonly used areas. Other staff took responsibility for cleaning their own work areas.
“This meant all staff were involved in ensuring good infection control practice was maintained.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently testing new staff, returning staff and people admitted from hospital?
- 02How do you now record and monitor people's self-isolation periods, tests and results?
- 03How do you make sure enhanced cleaning is completed in people's rooms and the communal areas they use most?
- 04What communication support is available if staff wearing masks makes it harder for someone to communicate?
- 05How are decisions and lessons about infection control recorded and shared with staff?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and other aspects of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 September 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.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised rehabilitation care, with some risks and record-keeping issues still being addressed.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 27 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported by trained staff who understood their needs, received their medicines as prescribed and had access to rehabilitation, therapies, healthcare and meaningful activities.
Inspectors also found some areas needing attention. Ligature risks had not been reduced or removed in the higher-risk hospital wing. The hospital wing kitchenette needed cleaning, some staff reported short staffing at times, and care plans did not clearly record people's consent and involvement. The overall rating stayed Good, and the Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
Rehabilitation focus
People followed structured rehabilitation programmes aimed at developing daily living skills, communication and independence. They could use specialist therapies, the gymnasium and community activities.
“People were supported through a rehabilitation pathway which focussed on developing daily living skills and communication and reducing the risk of social isolation.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. Staff supported people's dignity, choices, communication and personal interests.
“We observed people were comfortable with staff and had developed positive, trusting relationships.” from the report
Specialist support
People had access to a range of on-site professionals and other health and social care services. These teams worked together on neurological and physical rehabilitation.
“This multi-disciplinary team worked together to support all aspects of people's neurological and physical rehabilitation.” from the report
Medicines management
The home had improved its medicine systems since the previous inspection. Inspectors found medicines were stored and administered safely and records were complete.
“Medicine records were fully completed and clinical rooms were managed in line with best practice guidance and legal requirements.” from the report
Learning and improvement
The manager used audits, incidents, complaints and feedback to identify improvements. Information about actions and lessons learnt was shared openly.
“The registered manager used information derived from the quality assurance system to drive improvement.” from the report
Ligature risks
seriousLigature risks had not been reduced or removed in the hospital wing for people assessed as having higher risks. The home said further steps would be taken when individual risks were identified.
“However, ligature risks had not been reduced or removed in the hospital wing which was designated for people with higher risks.” from the report
Occasional staffing shortages
needs fixingSome staff said the home could be short staffed because of unplanned absence, although staffing was reviewed daily and recruitment of casual staff was under way.
“Staff told us there were usually enough staff but there were times when they felt the service was short staffed, through unplanned staff absence.” from the report
Kitchenette cleaning
minorThe hospital wing kitchenette presented an infection control risk because handles and the inside of the microwave were dirty. Staff said this would be addressed immediately after the inspection.
“We found the hospital wing kitchenette posed an infection control risk.” from the report
Care plan consent records
needs fixingPeople knew about or had seen their care plans, but the records did not clearly show that people had consented to or been consulted about their care.
“People told us they had seen or were aware of their care plan, although records did not clearly reflect people had consented and been consulted about their care.” from the report
Care plans were difficult to navigate
minorCare plans contained useful personalised information but were lengthy and repetitive. The home was transferring them to a new format to make them clearer and better reflect people's own voices.
“We found care plans cumbersome to navigate around due to the volume of information, much of which was repetitive.” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to reduce or remove ligature risks in the hospital wing?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough staff when there is unplanned absence or someone needs one-to-one support?
- 03How are you recording that people and their relatives have been consulted about and consented to care plans?
- 04Has the hospital wing kitchenette been cleaned and how are infection control checks now recorded?
- 05Have the care plans been moved to the new format, and how does this make them easier for people and families to understand?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises; the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 August 2019 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 Barclay House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 October 2015.
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 Leicester
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 £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 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.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.