CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bartletts Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including through cleaning, protective equipment, testing, visitor controls and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Bartletts Residential Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
Inspectors visited the home on 18 February 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. It looked at infection prevention and control.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks. The home had extra cleaning schedules and regular audits.
People were supported to keep in touch with their families through planned visits and video calls. Staff and residents took part in regular COVID-19 testing.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a full quality rating for the home.
Family contact
The home used individual visitor plans, booked visiting times and video technology to help people stay in contact with their families.
“People were supported to keep in touch with their families throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Cleaning
Extra cleaning schedules covered frequently touched surfaces, and audits were used to identify improvements and support safety.
“Additional cleaning schedules had been introduced to reflect additional tasks such as cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.” from the report
COVID-19 testing
Staff and people using the service took part in regular testing. Staff also completed lateral flow tests twice a week.
“Staff and people using the service took part in regular testing for COVID-19.” from the report
Infection controls
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely and had arrangements to prevent or manage outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are individual visitor plans reviewed now, and how are visits arranged?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested for infections at present?
- 03How do you check that frequently touched surfaces are cleaned as scheduled?
- 04What happens if a staff member or resident has a positive test result?
- 05What current information can you provide about the other four CQC question areas, which this inspection did not assess?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it did not assess the other four questions and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 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 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but fire training and care records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection over 15, 16 and 21 November 2018. Inspectors spoke with people, a relative and staff, observed care, meals and medicines, and checked care, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives were positive about the kindness of staff, the atmosphere and the care provided.
Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, safeguarding and infection control were generally managed well. However, some staff had not been trained to use evacuation equipment, fire drills were not evaluated in writing, and care records did not always match people's current needs or the care given.
The Good rating continued from the previous inspection. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns, but it made recommendations about fire drills and accurate record keeping.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind, compassionate and respectful. Inspectors also observed reassuring and gentle interactions.
“People were supported by staff who treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Medicines and staffing
Medicines were administered and recorded correctly during the inspection. Inspectors also found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.
“Medicines were managed well within the home.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home offered individual and group activities and helped people stay connected with their local community. Some people were supported to revisit important places from their past.
“The home had forged links with the local community and supported people to engage in meaningful activities.” from the report
Supportive leadership
The management team was experienced and approachable. Staff described a friendly and supportive culture.
“Staff told us they liked working at the home, there was a friendly and supportive culture within the home.” from the report
Fire evacuation training
seriousSome people needed equipment to help them leave the building during a fire, but staff had not been trained to use it. Fire drill records did not show what had been learned or what needed improving.
“At the time of the inspection, staff had not received training on how to use this.” from the report
Care records did not always match needs
needs fixingSome risk assessments, care plans and daily notes were out of date or incomplete. This included records about falls, injuries and skin damage.
“Records relating to risk were not always maintained to reflect the current level of risk.” from the report
Support at mealtimes
minorInspectors saw three people who could have been better supported during a meal. This included positioning, providing visible cutlery and offering hand hygiene.
“On the first day of the inspection we observed three people who could have been better supported.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
minorSome colours and room doors could be confusing for people living with dementia. A gravel garden path was also difficult for relatives to use with a wheelchair.
“However, the colours chosen did not always lend to it being suitable for people with dementia.” from the report
- 01What training have all staff now received to use evacuation equipment, such as an evac chair?
- 02How do you record and review what was learned from each fire drill?
- 03How do you check that risk assessments and care plans reflect a person's current falls, skin and mobility needs?
- 04How do you make sure daily notes give a complete record of the care provided?
- 05What changes have been made to improve signs, colours, handrails and paths for people living with dementia?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas, and the Good ratings in all areas continued from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 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 Bartletts Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 January 2011.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,020 to £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.