CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Barons Park Care
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, staff were safely recruited, medicines were managed properly and infection control measures were robust. They also found enough staff to meet people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible and approachable management, regular audits, an action plan and an open culture where people, relatives and staff felt listened to.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Barons Park Care is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and strong management.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 March 2022. Inspectors reviewed information about the home, spoke with three people, six relatives and six staff, and checked records and the care environment.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, well-managed medicines, suitable infection control and thorough risk assessments. People and relatives said they felt safe and received compassionate, dignified care.
The home had open management, regular audits and an action plan for improvements. The overall Good rating remained unchanged from the previous inspection, published in March 2018. The other three key questions were not inspected during this visit and carried forward their previous ratings.
Kind and dignified care
People and relatives described the care as safe, compassionate and dignified. Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff.
“The service was warm and welcoming, people had formed positive relationships with staff who in turn provided personalised and dignified care.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough suitably qualified and experienced staff. Bank staff were brought in promptly when two staff members were off sick.
“Replacement staff were deployed from the 'bank' promptly to ensure continuity of care.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and managed safely. The stock checked matched the medicines records, and staff had training and competency checks.
“We reviewed 18 MARs and found the actual stock of medicines matched what was recorded on the MAR.” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible and approachable. Audits and an action plan were used to monitor risks and improvements.
“The service had robust governance systems in place.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures to prevent and manage infection outbreaks, including safe visiting arrangements.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure care plans stay up to date when a person's dementia or mental health needs change?
- 02How quickly can bank staff be provided when regular staff are absent, and how do you make sure they know each person's needs?
- 03How are families involved in care plan reviews and decisions about changes to care?
- 04What improvements to the décor and communal areas have been completed since the inspection?
- 05How are visiting arrangements managed during an infection outbreak, especially for end-of-life care?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 April 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, March 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some improvements still needed in activities and medicine records.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 February 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicine records, recruitment checks and quality audits.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, safe medicines systems, kind care and good access to health services.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in January 2017, when it was rated Requires Improvement. Care plans were more up to date, mealtimes were more positive and management checks had improved.
There were still some weaknesses. Activities were limited because care staff had to provide them alongside their other duties. Some mental capacity assessments were basic, and records for some medicines given through skin patches were not complete.
People were kept safe
Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and risks to people were assessed and reviewed. The inspection also found suitable staffing and recruitment checks.
“People were kept safe from avoidable harm because the staff team understood their responsibilities.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance and support in a patient and sensitive way. Staff respected privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“We observed care interactions that were kind, patient and sensitive.” from the report
Care plans improved
Plans were personalised, up to date and reviewed when people's health or welfare changed. Staff knew people's routines, preferences and needs.
“The care plans checked were up to date.” from the report
Strong management checks
The manager used regular audits to check care records, medicines, falls, weights, pressure ulcers, the environment and equipment. Problems identified through these checks led to action.
“The registered manager had robust systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Better mealtimes
Compared with the previous inspection, staff gave more encouragement and personal attention to people who needed help to eat.
“We observed people being provided with a much more positive experience during meal times.” from the report
Limited activity time
needs fixingThere was only a small amount of dedicated activity-worker time. Care staff also led activities, but their care duties meant this was not always possible. A proposal for more dedicated activity time was still awaiting approval.
“Whilst this was an improvement, it was evident that this was not ideal because the staff members were still required to assist people with their care and support if needed, taking them away from the activities.” from the report
Incomplete patch records
needs fixingFor medicines delivered through skin patches, there was no chart showing where patches had been placed or daily checks confirming they were still in place. The manager said new charts would be introduced.
“Where people received their medicines via a trans-dermal patch there was no rotation chart in place showing the administration site.” from the report
Pharmacist advice had not yet been obtained
needs fixingSome medicines were disguised. The GP had agreed to this, but pharmacist advice about whether the medicines could safely be disguised in the proposed way had not yet been obtained during the inspection.
“the advice of a pharmacist had not been sought as to the suitability to disguise medications in the manner proposed.” from the report
Basic mental capacity assessments
minorAssessments were specific to individual decisions but lacked detail. The manager said this was an area being developed with support from the local Clinical Commissioning Group.
“We did note that whilst these assessments were decision specific, they were basic in detail.” from the report
- 01What meaningful activities are available each day, and has the proposed dedicated activities worker been appointed?
- 02How do you now record the position of trans-dermal patches and check each day that they are still in place?
- 03What pharmacist advice has been obtained about medicines given covertly, and how is consent or best-interest decision-making recorded?
- 04How have mental capacity assessments been improved since this inspection?
- 05How do you make sure staffing remains sufficient when there is sickness, especially at weekends?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and reviewing care, observations, records, staff views and feedback from people, relatives and other organisations. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 March 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 Barons Park Care
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
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 10 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 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.