CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Baytrees
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, personal protective equipment, testing, safe admissions and visiting arrangements. The provider also told inspectors it had measures to reduce the risks from COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control, staffing arrangements and support for safe visiting.
This was a targeted inspection about infection control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was announced, with 24 hours' notice.
Inspectors found good practice. The home used bank and regular agency staff to help provide the support people needed. It carried out regular checks on hand hygiene and cleaning.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, supported testing, managed admissions and visits safely, and kept its infection control policy up to date.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall rating or a rated score for the five key questions.
Staffing cover
The home used bank staff and regular agency staff to help make sure people received the support they needed.
“The service had a flexible staff group with bank staff and regular agency staff used to ensure people had the support they needed.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found good oversight of infection control, including regular checks on hand hygiene and cleaning.
“There was good oversight of infection control in the home with regular spot checks of hand hygiene and cleaning.” from the report
Support with COVID-19 decisions
The manager had considered individual COVID-19 risks and supported people to understand how to stay safe. The report also describes support with decisions about testing and vaccination.
“The manager had a good understanding of capacity and helping people make decisions related to COVID-19, such as testing and vaccination.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
People were supported to see loved ones at home and to visit family and friends safely, in line with government guidance.
“The home was supporting people to have visits from loved ones in the home, and to visit family and friends in a safe way, and in line with government guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are bank and regular agency staff used, and how do you make sure people receive consistent support?
- 02How often are hand hygiene and cleaning checks carried out, and what happens if a check identifies a problem?
- 03How are people's individual COVID-19 risks and decisions about testing and vaccination recorded and reviewed?
- 04How can family visits take place now, both at the home and in the community?
- 05How do you make sure visiting staff and professionals meet the current COVID-19 vaccination requirements or have an exemption?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 March 2022 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, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with no serious risks or concerns.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 2 July 2018. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff. They reviewed care plans, staff records, complaints, incidents and safety checks, and observed care in communal areas.
The home supported four people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with respect and supported by staff who understood their needs. Staff helped people manage anxiety, make choices, stay healthy and build independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, as it was at the previous inspection in July 2015. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Managing anxiety safely
Staff used different strategies to reduce anxiety and avoid physical intervention where possible. Incidents were reviewed to identify triggers and improve support.
“Staff were skilled in adopting a wide range of strategies to de-escalate potentially challenging situations without the need for physical intervention.” from the report
Personalised communication
People had individual communication plans and tools, such as visual timetables and colour-coded systems. These helped people express choices and control their routines.
“This meant people were able to communicate their needs and wishes.” from the report
Respect and involvement
Care plans recorded people's preferred routines, relationships and ways of receiving support. Relatives were kept informed and could contribute to care planning.
“People were involved in planning and making decisions about their care.” from the report
Strong oversight
The manager carried out checks covering medicines, infection control, health and safety, equipment and utilities. The home also acted on external fire safety recommendations.
“These audits and checks were effective in monitoring the safety of the home environment.” from the report
Reducing medicines
The provider worked with people, families and health professionals to review medicines used for anxiety and behaviour. This had reduced medicines for at least one person.
“One person had successfully reduced the amount of medicines they required for behaviour related to anxiety because of collaboration between staff and health professionals to identify ways to manage their anxiety.” from the report
End of life planning
minorThe registered manager said the home could provide only limited support with end of life planning. This was linked to people's age and ability to understand the subject, but families should ask how future wishes would be handled.
“The registered manager told us that they could only provide limited support to plan end of life care.” from the report
Developing life skills programmes
minorThe home was working to make life skills programmes more meaningful for each person. Families may want to check how these programmes have developed since the inspection.
“It will be my focus to develop these programmes to make it more meaningful for each individual.” from the report
- 01How do you assess and manage my relative's anxiety, behaviour and any risk of harm?
- 02What communication tools or routines would you use to help my relative make choices?
- 03What progress has been made with the life skills programme since the inspection?
- 04How are medicines for anxiety or behaviour reviewed, and are there plans to reduce them where possible?
- 05How would you support my relative and our family with end of life planning if this became necessary?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 August 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 Baytrees
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 February 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
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.