CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bayith Rest Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with a past medicines-record issue addressed.
The inspection took place over 12 and 13 March 2020. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, audits and recruitment records.
Inspectors found that people were safe and received suitable care. There were enough staff, medicines were stored safely, and people received them as prescribed. Staff had the training and skills needed, and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare.
People and relatives described staff as kind, patient and respectful. Care plans recorded people's needs, interests and preferences. People were offered activities, could make choices about daily life, and could stay at the home for end of life care if they wished.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 12 July 2017.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind, patient and helpful. Inspectors also saw respectful support that protected privacy and dignity.
“It has been clear from feedback provided by the residents that staff have been able to develop good working relationships with them” from the report
Personalised daily life
People could choose what to eat, what to wear, when to get up and where to spend their day. Care plans included personal histories and preferences.
“Staff ensured people could make choices regarding their daily activities, such as what they wanted to eat and where they wanted to spend the day.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home offered a range of activities and entertainment, including regular singing visits. Staff also spent time with people who stayed in their rooms.
“People were offered a range of activities and entertainment.” from the report
Good management and improvement
The home had a clear leadership structure and regular checks on care, cleaning and accidents. The manager acted when problems were found, including replacing a temperamental call bell system.
“The registered manager had an effective quality assurance system in place.” from the report
Previous medicines-record problem
minorThe manager reported an earlier issue with missed signatures on medicines administration records. They obtained external advice and introduced a new system, but families should check that records remain complete.
“The registered manager told us there had been an issue with missed signatures on medicines administration records.” from the report
- 01How do you check that medicines administration records are signed correctly every time?
- 02What staffing levels would be provided for my relative's needs, including at busy times of day?
- 03How would you adapt activities and support if my relative preferred to stay in their room?
- 04How would you record and review my relative's communication needs, preferences and changing care needs?
- 05Could my relative remain at the home for end of life care, and how would their wishes be recorded?
This was a planned inspection of the whole care home and all five key questions; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 April 2020 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, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some staff appraisals overdue.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 May and 1 June 2017. One inspector spoke with people using the home, relatives, staff, health professionals and the registered manager. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines systems, appropriate risk assessments and staff who understood people's needs. People were treated with dignity and received kind, personal care.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in December 2014. Earlier concerns about care records and mental capacity and deprivation of liberty procedures had been addressed. Some staff appraisals were overdue, but the manager had a plan to complete them by the end of June 2017.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff and safe systems for recruiting staff and managing medicines. Medicines were stored, administered and checked appropriately.
“There were enough suitably skilled staff deployed to support and meet the needs of the people living in the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them calmly and compassionately. Inspectors saw that privacy, dignity and personal choices were respected.
“Throughout the inspection we observed staff were consistently helpful, respectful and caring.” from the report
Individual care
Care plans reflected people's needs, life histories and preferences. Staff encouraged people to remain as independent as possible and responded quickly when help was requested.
“Care plans were individualised and reflected the findings of the assessment carried out.” from the report
Good leadership and improvement
The manager was visible and approachable, and staff said they felt supported. Audits and feedback were used to improve the home, and earlier problems with records and legal safeguards had been addressed.
“During this inspection we saw that improvements had been made.” from the report
Some appraisals were overdue
minorThe manager found that some staff had not yet had their annual appraisal. A plan was in place to bring these up to date by the end of June 2017.
“The registered manager had reviewed people's annual appraisals and noticed that some staff were overdue their appraisal.” from the report
- 01Were all overdue staff appraisals completed by the end of June 2017?
- 02How often are staff training, supervision and medicines competency checks reviewed?
- 03How will you assess and review my relative's capacity, and involve the family in best-interest decisions if needed?
- 04How would you support my relative's particular dietary, mobility, pressure sore or dementia-related needs?
- 05What activities would be available that match my relative's interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the previous inspection in December 2014 had also rated the home Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 July 2017 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 Bayith Rest Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.