CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Barnfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, recruitment, risk management, infection control and medicines arrangements were generally safe, although inspectors recommended improving guidance for some as-required medicines.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff knew people's needs, supported healthcare and followed the Mental Capacity Act principles. Inspectors recommended improvements to independence, cooking and food preparation, and noted that some training records were unclear.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate Caring rating. It says staff knew people well, treated them positively and sought their consent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate Responsive rating. Inspectors found limited evidence that activities were tailored to people's interests and that some people were supported to maintain their skills and independence.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider had a clear improvement plan and an effective quality assurance system. However, some staff meetings had not been held regularly, and some shortfalls found during inspection had not been identified by audits.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective care and good leadership, but identified gaps in activities, independence and kitchen access.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 6 July 2023. One inspector spoke with people, staff, a relative and professionals, and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records and other management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also rated Good. People were described as safe, supported by enough staff, and cared for by staff who knew them well.
Inspectors found some areas needing improvement. Guidance for some as-required medicines was not personalised. There was limited evidence that activities were matched to people's interests or that people were encouraged to build independence. People could not use the kitchen, although the manager said a kitchenette would be investigated.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in 2017, and the ratings inspected this time remained Good. The report says the home had no registered manager at the visit, although the manager was applying for registration.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely and according to their needs and preferences. Recruitment checks were also completed before new staff started.
“There were enough staff to support people safely and according to their needs and preferences.” from the report
Staff knew people well
The staff team was stable, and staff understood people's needs, preferences and changes in health. People, relatives and professionals spoke positively about staff skills.
“The staff clearly knew everybody well and could support them according to their preferences.” from the report
Safe medicines arrangements
Medicines were stored and administered safely, and staff responsible for medicines had training and competence checks.
“People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Positive management
The manager was actively involved, staff felt supported, and the provider had improved systems for monitoring the home.
“There was an effective quality assurance system in place. Information was used to aid learning and drive improvement across the service.” from the report
As-required medicines guidance
needs fixingSome protocols for as-required pain relief did not contain enough information tailored to the individual. Inspectors made a recommendation to improve this guidance.
“However, protocols to guide staff on when these should be given did not all contain information tailored to the individual.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingSome people did little during the day, and records did not show that staff had tried to match activities to their interests. Inspectors recommended reviewing the activities offered.
“There was no clear evidence that staff had tried to engage them in interests or pastimes that were tailored to their preferences.” from the report
Independence and cooking
needs fixingPeople were not routinely encouraged to take part in tasks that could maintain their skills. Nobody could use the kitchen, so people could not prepare food, cook or load the dishwasher.
“This meant people only had access to snacks and could not complete everyday tasks in the kitchen, such as preparing food, cooking or loading the dishwasher.” from the report
Management oversight
minorSome improvements found by inspectors had not been identified through the home's audits. Staff meetings had also not been held regularly.
“However, some areas for improvement highlighted during the inspection had not been identified during the provider's audits of the service.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make as-required medicine guidance specific to each person?
- 02How will you make sure activities match each person's interests and preferences?
- 03How are people being encouraged to maintain or build their independence and daily living skills?
- 04What is the plan and timescale for providing a kitchenette or another safe way for people to prepare food?
- 05Who is currently responsible for the home while the manager's registration application is being considered?
The inspection looked at the home, the care provided, infection control and the Safe, Effective and Well-led key questions; the report does not give separate current ratings for Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 September 2023 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, November 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some gaps in medicines records.
The inspection visit took place on 10 October 2017. One inspector spoke with six people living at the home, managers, care staff and a domestic worker. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care records, staff files, rotas, training records and other records. They also spoke with two relatives and a healthcare professional after the visit.
The home provided care for up to 18 people with mental health needs, and 14 people were living there at the time. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe recruitment, appropriate support with medicines, good healthcare access and personalised care. People were treated with kindness and respect, supported to make choices and helped to stay as independent as possible.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found effective checks to identify and address improvements. They did find some gaps in medicines records when people took responsibility for their own medicines, and managers said they would improve the system.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw a calm and friendly atmosphere. Staff knew people well and provided patient, supportive care.
“The staff team had developed kind and supportive relationships with people using the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's individual needs and preferences. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care.
“People received personalised care and support which was responsive to their changing needs.” from the report
Safe staffing
There were enough suitably skilled staff, and staffing levels could be changed when people's needs or wishes changed.
“There were enough skilled and experienced staff on duty to ensure the safety of people who lived at Barnfield House.” from the report
Good healthcare support
Staff helped people arrange and attend GP and other healthcare appointments. Inspectors found that people's ongoing health needs were supported.
“People were supported to maintain good health, have access to healthcare services and receive on-going healthcare support.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you now check that medicines records are completed when people take their own medicines out of the home?
- 02What changes were made after inspectors identified gaps in the medicines administration records?
- 03How are people's changing mental health needs reviewed and reflected in their care plans?
- 04What activities and community opportunities are currently available for people who may not feel motivated to take part?
- 05How are people and families involved in decisions about care, activities, menus and changes to the home?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and it was the first inspection since the provider registered as a new legal entity in March 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 November 2017 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 Barnfield House
2 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 March 2017.
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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.