CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Barkby Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found improved recruitment, medicines management, cleaning and infection control. They also found enough staff, but some physical-intervention records did not consistently record the duration of holds or follow up possible later bruising.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Leadership and oversight were inconsistent. Managers had not identified incorrect CQC notifications or earlier confusion about mask wearing, and there was no registered manager in post.
What inspectors found, August 2020
Barkby Road is rated Good overall, with safe care improved but leadership still Requires Improvement.
This was a focused inspection on 29 July 2020. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, after concerns about people's care and the previous rating. The other areas were not inspected at this visit.
Safe was rated Good, improving from Requires Improvement. Inspectors found safer recruitment, enough staff, better medicines checks and improved cleaning. Staff understood people's needs and how to reduce distress, although some records about physical interventions were incomplete.
Well-led remained Requires Improvement. Managers and staff were not always clear about their responsibilities. This led to incorrect notifications to CQC and confusion about when staff should wear masks. The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good because of the findings at this inspection and ratings carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Safer recruitment
The staff files inspectors sampled were complete, with photographs, references and other required documents. A more robust recruitment process had been introduced since the previous inspection.
“The staff files we sampled were complete and included photographs of staff, three references, and other required documentation to show staff were safely recruited.” from the report
Medicines safety
A trained member of staff was always on duty for medicines administration. Competency checks and monthly audits had been strengthened.
“To improve medicines management, a member of staff trained in medicines administration was always on duty and identified on the staff rota.” from the report
Personalised support
People followed their own routines and activities. Staff understood communication needs and involved people in decisions about their care and support.
“The service provided individualised, personalised care. People followed their own routines and activities.” from the report
Improved environment
The home had been redecorated and improved, with people involved in choosing colours and decorations. Inspectors said these changes had a positive effect.
“People were involved in the improvements and chose colours, pictures and other decorations for the new décor.” from the report
Leadership oversight
needs fixingManagers had not identified that many restraint incidents had been reported to CQC under the wrong category. The provider also had not identified that mask-wearing guidance was not being followed.
“This issue was not identified prior to our inspection.” from the report
Physical-intervention records
needs fixingSome records did not show consistent follow-up for possible bruising, and the length of holds was not always recorded. The service said it would address this promptly.
“Some body maps showed that although there were no bruises, bruises might still appear in the days following the intervention.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post at the inspection. The manager was applying for registration with CQC.
“There was no registered manager in post.” from the report
Agency staff information
minorThe home used agency staff who were described as regular workers, but profiles with key information were not always available. The service said these would be obtained.
“The service did not always have profiles (key information about agency staff members) for the agency staff used.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that restraint records include the length of each hold and any later signs of bruising?
- 02Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and has the manager's CQC registration application been completed?
- 03How do you check that staff follow current mask-wearing and infection-control guidance?
- 04Do all agency staff now have profiles containing the key information needed to support people safely?
- 05How will relatives receive regular updates about how their family member is getting on?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 August 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, May 2019
Rated Requires Improvement, improved from Inadequate; care was kind but records, repairs and oversight still needed work.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 8 April 2019. Inspectors reviewed care and medicines records, recruitment files, training, complaints and quality checks. They spoke with staff, relatives and some people living at the home.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which had rated it Inadequate. People were generally safe, cared for kindly and supported with their health, food, choices and activities.
However, some recruitment records were incomplete. Not all incidents had full reviews and lessons recorded. Some repairs, cleaning records and new quality checks still needed closer oversight. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, with Safe and Well-led also rated Requires Improvement.
Improved staffing
Agency staff were no longer routinely used, giving people a more consistent staff team. Staffing levels were reviewed to make sure people's needs were met.
“Agency staff were no longer routinely used and this meant people using the service had a more consistent staff team supporting them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff responded quickly when someone became distressed and supported people with dignity.
“People were treated with kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's communication methods, behaviour support and interests. People were supported with activities such as shopping, going out and holidays.
“People had person centred care plans in place.” from the report
Safer medicines systems
Medicines records showed medicines were given at the right times. An electronic monitoring system had been introduced to reduce errors.
“The provider had introduced an electronic medicines monitoring system to help minimise medicines errors.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment records
needs fixingSome staff files did not contain photographic identification, and some references were missing or had not been verified. The provider said these gaps would be addressed.
“We did note that not all files had photographic identification and some references were not available or verified.” from the report
Repairs and cleaning still needed attention
needs fixingInspectors found damaged windows, a cracked wall, bubbling paint, a missing conservatory strut and broken light switches. Cleaning rotas also had gaps.
“We did note several double glazing window units had 'blown' and as a result were full of condensation.” from the report
Incident learning was incomplete
needs fixingThe home had improved its incident monitoring, but not every incident had a proper debrief and recorded lessons learned. This could limit how well the home prevents similar events.
“Records we looked at showed this was still an ongoing and developing process and not all incidents had been fully debriefed with lessons learned recorded.” from the report
Management systems not fully embedded
needs fixingNew audits and action plans were in place, but some were still being established. One incident had not been notified to CQC until after the inspection.
“Some audits were new and taking time to fully embed amongst staff.” from the report
Past delay with a bedroom leak
needs fixingOne relative said repeated complaints about a serious leak had not led to quick action. The report says the bedroom repairs had since been completed.
“There was a serious leak in [person] bedroom. Staff had complained, I complained repeatedly but nothing was done.” from the report
- 01Have all staff files now been checked for photographic identification and verified references?
- 02Which repairs identified at the inspection have been completed, including the windows, cracked wall, conservatory strut and broken light switches?
- 03How do you make sure every incident involving restraint or other harm is debriefed and has lessons learned recorded?
- 04How are cleaning rotas and the new quality audits checked to make sure they are completed properly?
- 05Has the new manager's application to register with CQC been completed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, following breaches found at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 May 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 Barkby Road
7 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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 Leicestershire
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 £1,260 a week. 82 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.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.