CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Barclay Street
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including the use of protective equipment, testing, visiting and admissions. They also found the infection control policy was up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Barclay Street was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the coronavirus pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 20 October 2020. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures as part of a national review of care homes.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, shielding, admissions, personal protective equipment and testing safely. They also found that the infection control policy was up to date.
The home had enough protective equipment, increased activities to reduce isolation and introduced safer visiting arrangements. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Protective equipment
There was a plentiful supply of protective equipment, and inspectors saw staff using it appropriately.
“The provider had ensured there was a plentiful supply of personal protective equipment and we saw staff used this appropriately.” from the report
Managing infection risks
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing and its infection control policy.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Reducing isolation
Activities had been increased and promoted to help reduce people's risk of becoming isolated.
“Activities within the service had been increased and promoted to reduce people's risk of isolation.” from the report
Safer visiting
The home had introduced a system for visits to take place safely, after visits had initially been discouraged.
“However, there was now a system in place to enable visiting to be completed in a safe way.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorCQC signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach. The report does not say that this led to a breach or formal enforcement action.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after CQC signposted resources to develop the home's infection control approach?
- 02How are visits managed now, and what happens if visiting arrangements need to change?
- 03How often are people using the service and staff tested, and how are the results managed?
- 04What activities are currently offered to reduce people's risk of isolation?
- 05How do visiting professionals manage protective equipment, social distancing and equipment disinfection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the other four quality questions or provide a full overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 October 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, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with improvement from the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced inspection over three days. The inspector spoke with two people, staff and management, reviewed care and medicine records, checked recruitment and supervision files, and examined quality records. Feedback was also sought from a family member and local authorities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines procedures, improved cleanliness and maintenance, personalised support, kind relationships and activities that helped people stay connected with family, education and the community.
The home supports up to seven people and six people were living there. It is larger than current best practice guidance, but inspectors said the building design and the way it was run reduced any negative impact. The previous inspection had found two breaches, but these had been addressed and there were no breaches at this inspection.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Recruitment checks, medicines training and monitoring systems were in place.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had undergone a robust recruitment process.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, communication styles, goals and choices. People were supported to make decisions and work towards achievements.
“Support plans provided a comprehensive guide as to people's needs, which took into account all aspects of their care” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff, with support delivered in a friendly and respectful way.
“We saw people had developed relationships with staff, enjoyed their company and laughter.” from the report
Community and family life
People were supported to attend education, leisure and vocational activities, travel, build friendships and keep in touch with family.
“People were supported and encouraged to continue their education, by attending school and colleges.” from the report
Improved management
Quality monitoring had improved since the previous inspection. Audits, meetings and reviews were used to identify issues and plan improvements.
“The provider had put into place a robust quality monitoring system with identified staff having responsibility for quality monitoring.” from the report
Larger than current guidance
minorThe home supports up to seven people, which inspectors said is larger than current best practice guidance. They said the building design helped reduce any negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
Busy shared lounge
minorThe lounge was busy and was the only route to both the kitchen and conservatory. A quieter lounge was available upstairs for people who wanted a calmer space.
“The lounge remained a busy environment, providing the only access to both the kitchen and conservatory.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure the busy lounge and its access route work well for each person?
- 02How is the upstairs quiet lounge used, and can people access it safely when they need a calmer space?
- 03How do you make sure the improvements to the building, furnishings, cleanliness and maintenance have been kept up?
- 04How are people's medicines reviewed, especially medicines used when someone becomes anxious or distressed?
- 05How are people and their families involved in reviewing support plans and decisions about care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and the care provided; it followed a previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 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 Barclay Street
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 August 2013.
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.