CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Barnford House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found robust arrangements to protect people from abuse and manage risks. There were enough familiar staff, medicines were generally managed safely, and the home was clean.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- One person's medicine was disguised in food without the required best-interests process. Some staff were unsure about the implications of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, and records of representatives' visits were not maintained.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful and supported people's dignity, choices and independence. Relatives said they were involved in decisions about care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff understood how people communicated and supported individual choices, activities and community access. Accessible information and hospital passports were available.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had visible leadership and regular checks on the quality and safety of care. These checks were used to identify and address improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Brookfields was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but the effective rating Requires Improvement because one person's disguised medicines were not handled in line with best practice.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 13 September 2018. One inspector met all six people living at the home, observed care, and spoke with staff, relatives and a health professional. Records, medicines, recruitment, training and quality checks were also reviewed.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who knew them well. People were helped to make choices, maintain relationships, join activities and access health care.
The effective rating was Requires Improvement. One person's medicine was given disguised in food without the required best-interests process. Some staff also needed more understanding of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, and records about representatives visiting people were not being maintained.
People were kept safe
Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities and risks to people had been assessed. There were enough regular staff who knew people's needs.
“People were supported by enough regular staff that they were familiar with and knew their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that people were treated with dignity. Staff supported choice and independence.
“We saw that staff engaged with people in an affectionate and warm manner that created a calm and caring environment for people.” from the report
Communication and activities
Staff understood people's individual ways of communicating and supported them to make choices. People could take part in activities and access the community.
“Staff supported them to express their views and choices in ways unique to them and to maximise their involvement in all areas of their lives.” from the report
Good oversight
The home carried out regular checks across its services and used written action plans when it found shortfalls.
“Audits were undertaken regularly in all aspects of service delivery.” from the report
Medicine given in food
needs fixingFor one person, medicine was disguised in food without a best-interests decision being made. Inspectors said this did not follow best-practice guidance.
“Where people were given medication disguised in food this was not in line with best practice guidelines.” from the report
Understanding of legal safeguards
needs fixingSome staff were unsure how a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard affected the support they gave. The manager also did not know that records should show regular visits by the person's representative.
“However, some staff we spoke with were unsure of what the implications of a DoLS was to the way they supported a person, and would benefit from some further training.” from the report
- 01Has the best-interests process been completed for anyone who receives medicine disguised in food?
- 02How do you check that staff understand and follow Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?
- 03Are records now kept to show that people's representatives visit them regularly?
- 04What changes were made after the inspection's concerns about medicines and legal safeguards?
- 05How are relatives involved when decisions are made about a person's care and treatment?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the previous inspection in January 2016 had rated all five areas Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 October 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.
Every inspection of Barnford House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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 Sandwell
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 £1,190 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.