CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Barford Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks. This included visitors, admissions, testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning and infection control policies.
- 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?
- Outstanding
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured the home had good infection prevention and control measures.
This was an announced inspection on 19 November 2020. It was part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice. The home used colour-coded zones, allocated staff to zones, cleaned frequently touched areas and had procedures for visitors, testing and personal protective equipment.
Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Separate infection control zones
The home used four separate houses as colour-coded zones. Staff were allocated to a zone to reduce the risk of spreading infection.
“Staff were allocated to a zone to reduce the risk of spreading infection.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
A housekeeping team used a cleaning rota and checklist. Frequently touched areas, such as handrails, were regularly disinfected.
“They had a clear cleaning rota and checklist to ensure all tasks were completed consistently.” from the report
Safer visiting arrangements
Visits were booked in advance and included hand-washing, temperature checks and a questionnaire. Visits took place in a pod separated by floor-to-ceiling windows.
“Visits took place in a 'pod' where floor to ceiling windows were in place.” from the report
Infection control systems
The home had up-to-date infection prevention procedures. Staff understood them and regular audits were used to identify and address issues.
“Regular audits were undertaken, and any issues identified and addressed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staff currently allocated to separate zones to reduce the spread of infection?
- 02How often are infection prevention and control audits completed, and what happens when they identify an issue?
- 03How are visitors currently checked and supported during visits?
- 04How do you make sure staff use personal protective equipment safely and effectively?
- 05How are new people admitted safely and given access to infection testing?
This was an announced thematic review focused on infection prevention and control; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 December 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, July 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care and outstanding support for meaningful lives, but staffing at weekends and nights could improve.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 12 October 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care, medicines, meals and activities, and checked care plans, risk assessments, records, recruitment files, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and well-led services. It was rated Outstanding for responsive care. Inspectors found detailed care plans, safe medicine systems, staff who treated people with respect, and good support for people's health, food and drink needs.
The strongest area was personalised care. Staff knew people's histories, preferences and interests. People were offered meaningful activities, including music, reminiscence, trips and links with the local community.
The home had experienced major changes, including new managers, staff changes and difficulties recruiting care staff. This led to high use of agency staff. People generally felt there were enough staff, but some reported waits for help, especially at weekends and at night.
Personalised dementia care
The home used the Butterfly approach and focused on people's life stories, identity, choices and wellbeing. Inspectors found this went beyond routine task-based care.
“The provider demonstrated an outstanding commitment and delivery of personalised care.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People had access to activities linked to their interests and past lives. These included music, reminiscence, outings, games, animals and community activities.
“People had fulfilling lives because they were fully engaged in activities that were meaningful to them.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff listened carefully, gave people choices and supported their dignity and privacy. People and relatives spoke positively about the care.
“Staff involved and treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans and risk assessments gave staff clear information about people's communication, mobility, nutrition and personal support needs. They were reviewed regularly.
“People's care and support plans and risk assessments were detailed and reviewed regularly giving clear guidance for care staff to follow.” from the report
Use of agency staff
needs fixingRecruitment difficulties, particularly for nurses, had led to high use of agency staff. The home usually requested the same agency workers to support continuity.
“It had been difficult to recruit care staff particularly nursing staff which had led to a high use of agency staff.” from the report
Timing of medicines
minorFeedback about the timing of medicines was mixed. People did not say this had affected their care, and inspectors found the medicine records and safety systems were in place.
“Feedback was variable of the times medicines were administered however, people did not say this had impacted on the care provided.” from the report
- 01How many care and nursing staff are normally on duty at weekends and at night?
- 02How often are agency staff used now, and how do you make sure they know each person's needs?
- 03What changes were made to weekend management cover after the inspection?
- 04How do you monitor medicine timings and respond when medicines are given later than planned?
- 05How will you continue to involve my relative in activities and care planning based on their life history and interests?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including observations of care, medicines, meals and activities and checks of care, staff and quality records; it was the first inspection since a change in legal entity. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 July 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Barford Court
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- July 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 July 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
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 £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
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.