CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Barrington House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks, including diabetes, mobility, behaviour, continence and nutrition, were assessed and managed. There were enough staff, medicines were administered safely, and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating or detailed findings for the Effective key question.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. Staff supported people to express their views, maintain relationships, use advocacy and retain their dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences and were updated when needs changed. People were supported with activities, communication, complaints and relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had improved quality checks and oversight. Staff understood their roles, and the report described an open culture and positive working relationships with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with previous shortfalls addressed.
The inspection took place on 11 May 2021. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicine records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicine systems, clear risk guidance and appropriate infection control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported people with activities, communication, relationships and independence. Care plans were personalised and updated when people's needs changed.
The previous inspection had rated the service Requires Improvement and found breaches of regulations. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach. The overall rating therefore changed to Good.
Safe risk management
Risk assessments and care plans gave staff clear instructions. Diabetes monitoring and escalation arrangements had been improved and were working effectively.
“Risk assessments and care plans guided staff in how to provide care safely and in the way the person preferred.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff, and inspectors saw warm interactions. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“We observed positive and caring interactions throughout the inspection.” from the report
Personalised activities
People took part in activities linked to their interests. Staff also supported gardening, memory books, picture albums and personalised mealtimes.
“People were engaged in a number of activities that interested them.” from the report
Accessible communication
Staff used easy-read information and recorded people's communication needs. This helped people understand their care and treatment.
“People were provided with easy read guides that supported them to understand information they needed.” from the report
Improved oversight
The manager used audits covering medicines, health and safety, infection control, diabetes and nutrition. The results were reviewed for trends and preventative action.
“The registered manager undertook a range of quality assurance audits to ensure a good level of quality was maintained.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently monitor and respond to high or low blood sugar readings?
- 02How are care plans reviewed when a person's health, mobility, diet or personal care needs change?
- 03How do you make sure there are enough staff when people need extra help with mobility or eating?
- 04What activities are available for someone with my relative's interests and communication needs?
- 05How will relatives be kept informed about changes to care and visiting arrangements?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive, Well-led and Caring, with infection control also checked; the Effective key question was not covered and the overall rating used earlier ratings for key questions not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 June 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 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but serious diabetes, activities and management problems remained.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 9 and 10 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, training, staffing and quality records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all Requires Improvement. Effective was rated Good.
Inspectors found that diabetes support remained unsafe. Staff did not always act on high blood sugar readings or seek medical advice. People were also not always given meaningful activities or personalised support.
There were improvements in moving and handling, medicines, food, one-to-one support and some record systems. However, the home had been rated Requires Improvement for the last three inspections and remained in breach of three regulations.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives said staff were kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors observed warm interactions and found that privacy and dignity were maintained.
“People and their families consistently told us how well looked after they were, and staff were respectful.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Medication records showed that people received their medicines as prescribed.
“The administration and recording of medicines was safe.” from the report
Safe moving support
The home improved its moving and handling practice after the previous inspection. Inspectors observed a transfer using a hoist that was carried out safely.
“At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and people were moved safely.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
Menus included fresh vegetables and healthy choices. Staff also worked with dietitians, speech and language therapists and other health professionals to support people's needs.
“People's specific dietary needs were known and met effectively by staff.” from the report
Communication support
Communication care plans were detailed, with guidance on pictures, words and objects. Easy-read information was available to help people understand their care.
“The registered manager had ensured that people's communication needs were being met and that they were given information in a way they understood.” from the report
Unsafe diabetes support
seriousStaff did not always follow the required steps when blood sugar readings were high. This created a potential risk of harm and was a continued breach of Regulation 12.
“Staff had failed to take the correct actions when this had occurred.” from the report
Limited meaningful activities
seriousSome people spent extended periods unoccupied, with television often used as the main activity. Activities were not consistently planned or checked against each person's wishes, breaching Regulation 9.
“People were not always provided with person centred support and did not always have meaningful engagement or undertake activities that were important to them.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousManagement systems did not identify repeated problems with diabetes, activities or medicine administration. This was a continued breach of Regulation 17.
“The provider did not always operative effective systems and processes to make sure they assessed and monitored the service.” from the report
Medicine audit change
seriousAfter daily medicine checks were changed to weekly checks, one person received a prescribed gel once daily instead of four times daily for eight days.
“One person was prescribed a gel to treat a muscular condition four times a day but had only received one application each day for eight days” from the report
Training and competence
needs fixingAlthough training was available, inspectors found that checks had not ensured staff were trained and competent to meet people's individual needs.
“The deputy manager checked that staff mandatory training was kept up to date, but this had not been effective in ensuring the staff were trained and competent.” from the report
- 01How do you now respond when a person's blood sugar reading is above the level in their care plan?
- 02How do you check that staff are competent to support people with diabetes and epilepsy?
- 03What activities are planned for each person, and how do you record whether they enjoyed or wanted them?
- 04How are medicine administration checks carried out now, following the previous change from daily to weekly audits?
- 05What action has been taken to make sure the three continued regulatory breaches have been addressed?
This inspection covered all five CQC key questions and found that the previous overall Requires Improvement rating remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 December 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 Barrington House
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 September 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.