CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Battersway Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines processes and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Care was personalised and staff had suitable training, but records did not always show why decisions about managing people's money had been made or whether people could manage their own finances.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate Caring rating. It says the atmosphere was positive and staff took a genuine interest in people.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate Responsive rating. It says care plans reflected people's needs and wishes, and people were supported to access community and health services.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had systems to review care, risks, incidents and premises safety. Inspectors found an open culture, clear staff roles and positive work with health professionals, although the finance-recording issue had not been identified.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and well-led care, but records about managing people's money needed improvement.
The inspection visit took place on 14 March 2023. One inspector spoke with everyone living at the home, met the provider and two staff, and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, health and safety records and quality checks.
Inspectors found people were safe. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, risks were assessed, medicines were handled safely and people could receive visitors. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and supported people to have choice and independence.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective. Records did not always explain decisions about managing people's money, including whether people could manage their own finances and what support had been considered. Safe and Well-led were rated Good. Caring and Responsive were not given ratings in this report.
Safe staffing and recruitment
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and recruitment included checks before staff started work.
“There were enough staff employed at the service to meet people's needs.” from the report
Support for independence
People were supported to make choices, manage medicines where possible and access their community without unnecessary restrictions.
“People were supported by staff to make their own decisions about medicines wherever possible.” from the report
Kind, familiar staff
People had long-standing staff who knew them well and supported their wishes. The home was described as a positive and homely place.
“The service had an open positive atmosphere and was very much people's homes.” from the report
Personalised care and health support
Care plans reflected people's needs and aspirations. Staff worked with health professionals and supported people to attend appointments.
“Care plans in place were personalised, and reflected people's needs and aspirations, including physical and emotional needs.” from the report
Records about people's money
needs fixingWhen the provider managed people's money, records did not always show whether the person could manage their own finances, why the decision had been made or how independence had been supported. Inspectors made a recommendation for improvement.
“records did not always reflect decisions being made, or why they had been made in relation to manging people's money.” from the report
- 01How do you now assess whether a person can manage their own money?
- 02If the home manages money for someone, where is the decision and its reasons recorded?
- 03How do you show that managing a person's money is in their best interests and supports their independence?
- 04How will you check that the improvements recommended by inspectors have been made?
- 05How will you involve the person, their family and relevant professionals in decisions about finances?
This inspection looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Caring and Responsive were not given separate ratings in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 April 2023 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, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection and clearer insulin guidance still needed.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 5 December 2017. One inspector met everyone living at the home, spoke with two people and staff, observed care, and reviewed care plans, records, training and policies. Information was also obtained from healthcare professionals and an activity provider.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, were treated kindly, had their choices respected and were supported to be independent and take part in activities they enjoyed.
The previous inspection in October 2016 had rated the home Requires Improvement overall, with breaches linked to safe care, staff recruitment, consent and governance. Inspectors found that the home had made the required improvements. They did recommend adding clearer written guidance for one person's varying insulin doses and blood sugar levels.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and showed concern for their wellbeing.
“People were supported by staff who were kind, caring, engaging and supportive.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's histories, preferences, health needs and goals. Staff supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“People benefited from personalised and meaningful activities which responded to their interests.” from the report
Good quality monitoring
The home introduced regular cleaning, health and safety, infection control, environment and food hygiene checks. Care plans were reviewed regularly.
“The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of care and make improvements to the service.” from the report
Independence and relationships
People were supported with cooking, shopping, household tasks, community activities and maintaining friendships and family relationships.
“People were supported to develop skills and independence.” from the report
Insulin guidance was incomplete
needs fixingRecords did not clearly explain the scale for varying insulin doses or the blood sugar levels that should be treated as too low or too high. Inspectors recommended seeking specialist guidance and adding this information to care records.
“It was not clear from records how much insulin the person should be having as there was no scale to guide the person or staff.” from the report
- 01What written guidance is now in place for varying insulin doses and for blood sugar levels that are too low or too high?
- 02How are staff trained and checked before they support someone to manage their own medicines or insulin?
- 03How would staffing cover be arranged if people's needs changed or regular staff were absent?
- 04How often are care plans, risk assessments and safety audits reviewed, and how are actions followed up?
- 05How are people supported to choose activities, use community facilities and develop their independence?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions, with ratings given for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 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 Battersway Court
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
21 live-in carers within about an hour of Torbay
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 £1,400 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.