CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Barkat House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, staff had safeguarding training, and infection control measures were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs, choices, nutrition and health care were assessed. Staff had training and supervision, and the home supported consent and best-interest decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in care planning and decisions about daily life.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and life histories. Activities took place seven days a week, and information was provided in accessible formats.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- New managers had introduced action plans, audits and rewritten care records. Inspectors said these systems needed more time to become embedded in daily practice.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Barkat House Residential Home: Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but leadership systems still needed time to become fully established.
Inspectors made an unannounced follow-up visit on 17 June 2021. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. People were supported with medicines, food, health needs, activities and communication. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. New managers had introduced better audits, care records and other systems, but these needed more time to become part of everyday practice. The overall rating was Good, and the home was no longer in Special Measures.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found that people received their medicines at the correct time and as prescribed. Storage, stock checks and staff training were also in place.
“Records showed people received their medicines at the correct time and as prescribed by their doctor.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's preferences, life histories and what mattered to them. People and relatives were involved in writing and reviewing these records.
“People's care records reflected their preferences, what was important to them and how they wished to spend their time.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed staff communicating patiently and treating people with dignity. People said they felt well looked after.
“We observed all staff respond to people proactively and treat them with kindness.” from the report
Activities and choice
People were offered activities based on their interests, including activities at weekends. Staff also offered alternatives when people did not want to join group activities.
“Activities took place seven days a week as care staff were involved in this during the weekend.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The new manager and deputy had introduced better monitoring, new care records and extra staff training. The provider was no longer in breach of the regulations identified at the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Leadership systems not fully established
needs fixingAlthough new management systems had been introduced, inspectors said they needed more time to become part of daily practice. This is why well-led was rated Requires Improvement.
“New systems and processes had been successfully introduced into the service, but required to time embed into daily practice.” from the report
- 01How have the new audits and management systems continued to work since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that care plans remain accurate and reflect my relative's current preferences and needs?
- 03How are diabetes care and changes in health needs monitored and communicated to staff?
- 04How do you check that medicines are given correctly and that records remain complete?
- 05What arrangements ensure a senior member of staff is available every day to support staff and keep paperwork up to date?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, with particular attention to previous regulatory breaches, diabetes management and infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 July 2021 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, December 2020
Rated Requires Improvement overall; inspectors found safety, effectiveness, and responsiveness issues, with leadership rated Inadequate.
Inspectors visited Barkat House Residential Home over three days in October 2020 to check if the provider had made improvements since the last inspection. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, and staff, and reviewed care records and the environment.
They found that while people said they felt safe and relatives agreed, there were still problems with safeguarding, medicine handling, and infection control. Some risks were not well managed and care plans did not always reflect people's needs or preferences, especially for those with dementia.
The home did not always follow legal rules about consent and decision-making. Activities and meaningful interactions were limited, and end of life wishes were not always recorded. The environment had some improvements but was not fully dementia friendly.
Leadership was weak. Systems to check quality and safety were not effective. The manager and provider did not always identify or act on problems, and staff had mixed views about raising concerns. The home remains in breach of regulations and is placed in special measures.
People felt safe
People living at the home said they felt safe and knew who to tell if they did not.
“I'd just tell them. They'd come and see me.” from the report
Staff communicate in people's first languages
Many staff spoke multiple languages and used these to support communication with people.
“We observed staff communicating with people in their first languages.” from the report
Health appointments supported
People were helped to attend regular health checks and referrals were made when needed.
“People were supported to attend regular health appointments.” from the report
Kitchen hygiene improved
The kitchen was clean and audits were carried out regularly to improve food hygiene.
“We saw the kitchen was clean and tidy with separate storage space for food required as part of a specialist diet.” from the report
Safeguarding not always effective
seriousPotential abuse concerns were not always identified or reported properly, putting people at risk.
“We again identified potential safeguarding matters that had not been escalated or investigated.” from the report
Poor infection control
seriousStaff did not always use protective equipment correctly and cleaning schedules missed key areas, increasing infection risk.
“Staff were not always using personal protective equipment in line with guidance.” from the report
Weak leadership and oversight
seriousThe provider and manager did not have effective systems to monitor quality and safety or respond to concerns.
“Systems and processes in place were not effective in highlighting or preventing shortfalls in the service.” from the report
Complaints not always addressed
needs fixingFeedback and complaints were not consistently reviewed or acted upon.
“A feedback form from a person expressing dissatisfaction with the service had not been read.” from the report
- 01How do you ensure safeguarding concerns are identified and acted on promptly?
- 02What steps have you taken to improve infection control and staff use of protective equipment?
- 03How do you involve people in decisions about their care and ensure consent is properly recorded?
- 04What activities and meaningful interactions do you provide for people, especially those with dementia?
- 05How are you improving leadership and quality monitoring to prevent repeated issues?
This was a focused inspection covering Safe, Effective, Responsive, and Well-led; other ratings carry over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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.
Every inspection of Barkat House Residential Home
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Barkat House Residential Home →
- December 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Barkat House Residential Home →
- June 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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 Birmingham
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 £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.