Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Basford

Goodpublished 14 March 2018, 8 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding and risk management. Inspectors found that staffing levels had sometimes restricted outings, although staffing was increased immediately.
Effective?
Good
People's needs, health and dietary requirements were assessed and understood. Some staff refresher training was overdue, and some staff had limited understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
Caring?
Good
Staff were observed to be kind, patient and respectful. People were involved in decisions, and their privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
Responsive?
Good
Support plans had been reviewed and people were supported with activities, hobbies and interests. Communication needs, complaints and end of life wishes were considered.
Well-led?
Good
People, relatives and staff were positive about the leadership. Audits and an improvement plan were in place to monitor quality and safety.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, March 2018

Heathcotes (Basford) was rated Good in all five areas, but inspectors found shortfalls in staffing, some training and cleaning records.

Inspectors visited the home without warning on 31 January 2018. They spoke with people living there, staff, managers, a visiting professional and relatives. They also reviewed care records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.

The home supported six people with mental health needs, learning disabilities or autism. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities. Staff understood people's needs and worked with health professionals.

There were some issues. Staffing levels had sometimes limited people's ability to go out, some staff training was overdue, not all night staff had completed medicines training, and some cleaning tasks were not recorded. The home took action during or after the inspection.

The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection in February 2016.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful staff

    Inspectors saw staff being patient, compassionate and reassuring. People said staff listened to them and respected their privacy.

    “We observed staff to be kind and compassionate when supporting people, they were patient and considered in their approach when interacting with people.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Staff knew people's preferences, histories and routines. People helped plan their support and were encouraged to be independent.

    “Staff spoke positively and respectfully about the people they supported, clearly demonstrating a good understanding of people's preferences, personal histories, routines and what was important to them.” from the report
  • Safe medicines management

    Inspectors found that medicines were organised, given at the right times and checked through stock checks and audits.

    “People received their prescribed medicines safely. We found the medicines systems were organised and people were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
  • Strong management oversight

    The home had regular checks covering areas such as medicines, accidents and care plans. The provider also had an improvement plan.

    “There was a system of audits and processes in place that continually checked on quality and safety.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Staffing affected outings

    needs fixing

    People sometimes could not go out when they wished because staffing levels had been affected by increased physical care needs. Staffing was increased immediately after inspectors raised this.

    “Some concerns were identified with staffing levels and immediate action was taken to increase the amount of staff on duty.” from the report
  • Some training was overdue

    needs fixing

    Some staff had not completed refresher training when required, including first aid training. The training was booked during the inspection.

    “When reviewing the staff training plan, we saw some staff had not received refresher training at the required time.” from the report
  • Night staff medicines training

    needs fixing

    Not all night staff had completed medicines training at the time of inspection. The manager later confirmed that these staff were enrolled as a priority.

    “Not all night staff had received medicines training, whilst there was a plan to manage this action was taken to resolve this issue.” from the report
  • Cleaning records

    minor

    The service was clean, but some cleaning tasks were not recorded. The night schedule showed two missed entries shortly before the inspection.

    “The night cleaning schedule showed two nights prior to our inspection, staff had not completed the cleaning schedule.” from the report
  • Mental capacity records

    needs fixing

    Some staff had limited understanding of mental capacity rules. Although best interest decisions had been made, the involvement of other relevant people was not always clearly recorded.

    “Some staff demonstrated a limited understanding about MCA and DoLS even though they had received training and the provider had a policy to support and inform staff practice.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you make sure there are enough staff for each person to go out when they wish?
  2. 02Have all current staff completed medicines training, including night staff?
  3. 03Which staff training and refresher courses were overdue, and have they now been completed?
  4. 04How do you check that cleaning tasks are completed and recorded every day?
  5. 05How are best interest decisions and the involvement of relatives or others recorded?

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Basford

2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. March 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Basford →

  2. March 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. September 2014Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. September 2013

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

90 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottingham

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 £1,270 a week. 73 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.

See live-in carers near NottinghamProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.