CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Baylis Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding, risk assessment, medicines and incident-monitoring systems. Three fire doors did not fully close, so the home was asked to review its fire-door checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had suitable food and drink, access to healthcare and staff with appropriate training and skills. One mealtime was unsettled on the first inspection day but had been resolved by the second.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported choice, independence, relationships and participation in the local community.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records were personalised and regularly updated. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships, complaints and their future end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership, staff teamwork and effective quality checks. The manager had made changes that improved the running of the home.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care and improvements since the previous inspection, with some fire-door checks needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection over 24 and 27 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with a person using the home, staff, managers, relatives and health and social care professionals. They also observed care and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, had personalised support and were helped to make choices and build independence.
There was one recommendation about three fire doors that did not fully close. The manager arranged adjustments on the inspection day. A mealtime was unsettled for one person on the first day, but this was resolved by the second day.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in June 2018. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and that the home was no longer breaching regulations.
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs and were reviewed when circumstances changed. People were involved in decisions about their care.
“Care records were personalised to a very good standard and reflected each person's individual needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw compassionate interactions. People were supported to maintain privacy, dignity, relationships and independence.
“We observed how staff supported people with dignity and respect and provided compassionate support in an individualised way.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to develop skills, take positive risks and join activities in the community, including hobbies and college courses.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Improved leadership
The report says the manager had improved how the home was run. Staff described the changes as positive and felt supported.
“Since being in post the registered manager had improved the running of the service.” from the report
Safe medicines and safeguarding
Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely and staff understood how to recognise and report possible abuse.
“The provider had effective safeguarding systems in place and staff had a good understanding of what to do to make sure people were protected from harm or abuse.” from the report
Fire doors
needs fixingThree fire-door restrictors needed adjustment so the doors could fully close. The manager arranged adjustments on the inspection day, but inspectors recommended reviewing fire-door checks.
“We recommend the service reviews its practice regarding fire door checks to ensure these are fully maintained.” from the report
One unsettled mealtime
minorThe mealtime experience was a little unsettled for one person on the first inspection day. Inspectors said this had been resolved by the second day.
“On the first day of inspection the mealtime experience was a little unsettled for one person, this had been resolved on the second day.” from the report
- 01Have all three fire doors been adjusted, and how are you now checking that they fully close?
- 02How do you decide when a person needs additional staffing, and what happens while extra funding decisions are pending?
- 03How do you make sure mealtimes remain calm and suited to each person's needs?
- 04How are care plans and risk assessments updated when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 05How do people and relatives give feedback, and can you explain what changes have been made in response?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the care provided and the premises and assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 July 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.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care, but people were not always kept safe from harm.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 March and 19 April 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked care files, medicines records, staff files, rotas, complaints, audits and the building.
The home provided kind and personalised care. People were supported with their health, meals, medicines, choices, independence, relationships and activities. Inspectors rated Effective, Caring and Responsive as Good.
The main concern was safety. There had been a high number of incidents involving aggressive behaviour between people, including injuries. Staff numbers and recruitment were suitable, but staff deployment and incident analysis did not reliably prevent harm.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Well-led was also Requires Improvement because quality checks did not analyse incidents thoroughly enough or ensure learning was applied consistently. The report says improvements had been made since the previous inspection, including better care records, behaviour support plans and safeguarding referrals.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices.
“People told us staff were kind and caring and respected their privacy and dignity.” from the report
Support for health and nutrition
People received their medicines as prescribed and were supported with meals and specialist healthcare when needed.
“People's medicines were managed in a safe way and they received them as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people’s preferences, communication needs and goals, including plans to become more independent.
“Care plans seen were detailed and supported what staff had told us about people's preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities they chose and to maintain contact with friends and relatives.
“Arrangements were in place to ensure people had the opportunity to engage in a variety of different activities both within the service and the wider community.” from the report
People were not always protected from harm
seriousThere was a high number of aggressive incidents between people, including incidents causing injuries. The report says staff deployment did not consistently keep people safe.
“These incidents included some lower level incidents including hair pulling and nipping and others where people sustained injuries for example, a bloody nose following an unprovoked incident.” from the report
Incident learning was not strong enough
needs fixingThe home recorded incidents, but did not analyse them in enough depth to identify learning and reduce repeated risks.
“Information from incidents lacked the full rigour needed to ensure learning was applied consistently and reduce incidents within the service.” from the report
Mixed views about feeling safe
seriousSome people and relatives felt safe, but others reported bullying or distress caused by other people living in the home.
“My relative did feel safe, but not anymore.” from the report
- 01What has changed in staff deployment since inspectors found that people were not always kept safe from aggressive behaviour?
- 02How are incidents now analysed, and how do you check that the lessons lead to fewer incidents?
- 03What extra staffing or other support is available when incidents increase or a person’s needs change?
- 04How do you assess whether people are compatible before offering someone a place at the home?
- 05How are people and relatives told about safeguarding concerns and the actions taken after an incident?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions, covering the care and accommodation provided by the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 June 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 Baylis Place
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Outstanding to Good.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Requires improvementdown from OutstandingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2014OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 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 24 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Kingston upon Hull, City of
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 £1,350 a week. 12 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared 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.