CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bargery Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention arrangements. They were only somewhat assured that people were admitted safely and found that vaccination records for visiting professionals were not always kept.
- 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, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, with admissions and vaccination records needing attention.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 17 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
The home had suitable supplies of protective equipment, regular testing, hygiene checks and infection control training. Inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements, including visits, cleaning, protective equipment and managing outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. Inspectors were only checking specific COVID-19-related arrangements, so this report does not give a full rating of the quality of care.
Infection control
The home had infection control policies, training, protective equipment and regular checks. Inspectors were assured that the home could prevent or manage outbreaks.
“The service was kept clean and hygienic. There were regular checks and audits of the service to ensure high standards of hygiene were maintained.” from the report
Visits
The home changed its visiting arrangements as government guidance changed. Visitors were asked to test, use protective equipment and follow hand hygiene procedures.
“The provider had adapted the visitors' protocol as government guidelines changed.” from the report
Testing and protective equipment
People using the service and staff took part in regular COVID-19 testing. Staff received ongoing infection control training and managers checked their use of protective equipment.
“The service was taking part in regular COVID-19 testing for people and staff in line with current government guidance.” from the report
Pandemic planning
The home had risk assessments and contingency plans for pandemic-related risks. It also had plans to support people to use their local community safely.
“The provider had developed a range of risk assessments and contingency plans to mitigate the risks associated with the pandemic.” from the report
Admissions policy
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that admissions were safe. They advised the provider to update its admissions policy in line with current guidance.
“We have advised the provider to update their admissions policy in line with current guidance.” from the report
Vaccination records
needs fixingThe home did not always have records showing the COVID-19 vaccination status of visiting professionals. The provider said it had updated its procedure so these records would be kept.
“At the time of the inspection we found the service did not have effective measures in place to ensure this requirement was being met as there were not always records kept of the vaccination status of visiting professionals.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the admissions policy since this inspection?
- 02How do you now check and record the vaccination status of visiting professionals?
- 03How do you make sure visitors follow testing, protective equipment and hand hygiene requirements?
- 04How do you support people to use the local community safely if they have tested positive or need to self-isolate?
- 05What are the home's current staffing arrangements when there are COVID-19-related staff pressures?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other main areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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, February 2020
Bargery Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with medicine storage temperature checks started during the inspection.
Inspectors visited on 7 and 8 January 2020. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals. They also reviewed care and medicine records, staff files, policies and quality records.
The home supported up to seven people with a learning disability, with four people living there at the time. Inspectors found enough staff, good risk management, safe medicines support, suitable training and effective links with health professionals.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care was personalised, and they were supported with communication, activities, relationships, health needs and independence. The home had systems to listen to people and improve its care.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. These ratings were unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 10 July 2017.
Personalised support
Care was planned around people's choices, needs and goals. The home supported people to have control, make decisions and build independence.
“People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.” from the report
Safety and staffing
Risk assessments covered areas such as health conditions and emergency evacuation. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely.
“There were enough staff to ensure people's needs were safely met and this was confirmed by staff we spoke with.” from the report
Kind and familiar staff
People received support from a stable team who knew them well. Inspectors observed positive relationships between staff and people.
“There was a stable staff team in place, so people received support from familiar people who knew them well.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, maintain relationships and follow their cultural interests.
“The service provided regular activities to ensure people were occupied and stimulated throughout the week.” from the report
Health support
The home worked with a range of health and social care professionals. Staff acted on changes in people's health and helped people access medical care.
“The service worked with a range of health and social care professionals to ensure people's needs continued to be met.” from the report
Medicine storage checks
needs fixingAt the inspection, the home was not measuring the temperature of medicine storage areas. The manager started regular temperature checks after inspectors raised this.
“The service was not measuring the temperature of the medication storage areas to ensure they were kept at the correct temperature.” from the report
- 01How are medicine storage temperatures now checked and recorded, and what action is taken if a reading is outside the required range?
- 02How often are each person's risk assessments and care plans reviewed when their health or abilities change?
- 03How will you make sure activities continue to reflect each person's interests, relationships and cultural needs?
- 04How are families involved in care reviews and told about important changes in a person's health or support?
- 05How do your quality checks make sure that any shortfalls are followed up and fully resolved?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 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 Bargery Road
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 December 2010.
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 Lewisham
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. 82 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.