CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bidna House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting arrangements and the infection control policy. They were also told that measures were in place to reduce risks from COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not rated or examined in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not rated or examined in the report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not rated or examined in the report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not rated or examined in the report.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements, and concerns about infection control and staffing were not substantiated.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 25 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19-related staffing pressures were affecting the home.
Inspectors found handwashing facilities, visitor screening, face coverings, suitable risk assessments and an up-to-date infection control policy. PPE was available and used correctly. Testing, cleaning and infection control audits were also in place.
People were supported to stay safe and told inspectors they felt safe. Staff, people and professionals were kept informed about precautions. The home was following government visiting guidance and checking vaccination requirements for staff and visiting professionals.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give the home an overall quality rating or a full rating for all five areas.
Infection control
The home had handwashing and sanitising facilities, visitor screening, clear signs and suitable infection control procedures.
“There were suitable risk assessments and an up to date infection control policy and procedure in place.” from the report
PPE and testing
Inspectors saw a good supply of PPE, correct use by staff and testing arrangements for people and staff.
“Whole home testing was undertaken, with frequency of testing people and staff in line with current guidance.” from the report
Communication and safety
Staff regularly communicated with people and health and social care professionals about precautions. People told inspectors they felt safe.
“The registered manager and staff team communicated with people, staff and health and social care professionals regularly” from the report
Clean environment
A cleaning schedule covered all areas of the home and infection prevention audits were being carried out.
“A cleaning schedule for all areas of the service was in place and implemented to ensure the whole service was effectively cleaned on a regular basis.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What staffing pressures are there now, and how are they affecting staffing levels and support for residents?
- 02Have all staff completed the infection prevention and control training refreshers mentioned in the report?
- 03How are visitors currently screened and supported to follow infection prevention guidance?
- 04How often are residents and staff tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 05How do you use the cleaning and infection control audits to check that standards remain in place?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 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, January 2019
Bidna House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with limited communication affecting how some people could express their views.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 15 December 2018. Inspectors met all 12 people living there, spoke with relatives and staff, observed daily care, and checked care records, medicines records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, personalised care and respectful relationships.
Some people could not fully explain their experiences because of limited communication. Inspectors used observation and spoke with people who could communicate. The home had the same overall Good rating as at the previous inspection in May 2016.
Safe staffing and care
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Staff had suitable recruitment checks and understood safeguarding procedures.
“People had sufficient numbers of staff to support them and help keep them safe.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and supported them patiently. Inspectors saw positive relationships and care that respected privacy and dignity.
“People were supported by staff who were both kind and caring and we observed and heard staff treating people with patience and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records described people's histories, preferences, routines and communication needs. Staff adapted how they supported each person.
“The records were personalised and detailed how people needed and preferred care and support to be delivered.” from the report
Positive leadership
The management team was seen as approachable and committed. Checks and audits were used to monitor care and identify improvements.
“The provider's governance framework, helped monitor the management and leadership as well as the ongoing quality and safety of the care people were receiving.” from the report
Some people may not understand complaints information
minorThe complaints procedure was available in an easy read format, but inspectors said it would not be fully understood by everyone because of their learning disability. The home relied on staff, behaviour changes and advocates to help identify concerns.
“However, not all people living in the service would fully understand the procedure due to the level of their learning disability.” from the report
- 01How do you identify and respond to worries or complaints from people who communicate without speech?
- 02How are advocates involved when someone cannot fully understand or use the complaints procedure?
- 03How do you make sure each person's daily activities and outings continue to match their interests and needs?
- 04How often are medicines, including medicines given only when needed, checked and staff competence reviewed?
- 05How will the planned technology help people with hearing problems communicate with their families?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the home was rated Good in each area. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 January 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.
Every inspection of Bidna House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 November 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“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.”
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.