CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Borrage House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were effective. This included visitor checks, protective equipment, testing, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were effective.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 27 January 2021. It followed information of concern about infection control and prevention.
Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control under the Safe question. They were assured that the home was preventing infections, using protective equipment safely, managing visits and admissions, and following testing, cleaning, shielding and social distancing measures.
The home supported people's social and emotional wellbeing during restrictions. This included video calls, screened visits from relatives, communal activities with smaller groups, and safe use of shared areas.
The Safe question was inspected but not rated. The other four questions were not covered by this inspection, so this report does not provide current ratings for them.
Visitor safety
Essential visitors had to use protective equipment, provide track and trace information and have their temperature checked before entering.
“All essential visitors had to wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), complete NHS Track and Trace information, and have their temperature checked before entering the home.” from the report
Protective equipment
The home had enough protective equipment and separate areas for staff to put it on, remove it and dispose of it safely.
“The home had ample supplies of appropriate PPE which was stored hygienically and kept safe.” from the report
Keeping in touch
Staff helped people stay socially and emotionally connected through technology and screened visits with relatives.
“Staff supported people's social and emotional wellbeing.” from the report
Cleaning
Extra cleaning of communal areas and frequently touched surfaces was carried out and recorded. Deep cleaning was also available when needed.
“Additional cleaning of all areas and frequent touch surfaces was in place and being carried out and recorded by housekeeping staff.” from the report
Staff training and checks
Staff completed infection control training, and the manager carried out extra checks on their safe use of protective equipment.
“Additional competency checks with all staff regarding safe use of PPE were carried out by the registered manager.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently checked and supported to use protective equipment?
- 02How often are cleaning records and frequently touched surfaces checked?
- 03How do you test staff and residents, and how would you manage an infection outbreak?
- 04What are the current ratings or recent inspection findings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
- 05How are residents currently supported to see relatives and maintain social contact?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe only; the other four key questions were not assessed or rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2021 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, February 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, responsive care but monitoring and behaviour-support records were not always completed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 and 23 December 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care, staffing, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because monitoring charts were not always completed and one person did not have a positive behaviour support plan in place quickly enough.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, good infection control and suitable training. They also found kind and respectful care, good links with the local community and a warm atmosphere. The home was asked to improve how it assesses, records and manages risks linked to people's health conditions.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed compassion, patience, dignity and respect.
“We were impressed with the relaxed atmosphere and staff kindness, warmth and patience throughout the inspection.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and systems for administering, recording and storing medicines safely.
“There were enough, suitable staff employed to make sure people received prompt care and support.” from the report
Good staff support
Staff had induction, training, supervision and appraisals. Some staff had extra training to support people living with dementia.
“Comprehensive induction and training programmes were in place.” from the report
Community and activities
The home helped people stay socially connected through local events, school visits and shared activities.
“The service was embedded in the local community and took part in local events such as the annual procession in honour of Ripon's patron saint.” from the report
Incomplete health monitoring records
seriousStaff did not always complete monitoring charts or record what action was taken when concerns were identified. Inspectors gave the example of missing bowel monitoring records for a person who had recently needed hospital treatment.
“Staff did not always maintain appropriate monitoring charts, or document escalation and actions in response to identified issues.” from the report
Behaviour support plan delayed
seriousOne person had experienced distressed behaviour on nine occasions over a month before a positive behaviour support plan was put in place. The plan was completed during the second day of the inspection.
“Staff had not always completed positive behaviour support (PBS) plans when needed.” from the report
Some nutrition records incomplete
needs fixingFor one person at ongoing risk of malnutrition, longer-term food and fluid charts had not been completed, although staff could explain and were following supportive strategies.
“For one person, who was at ongoing risk of malnutrition staff had not completed food and fluid charts longer term.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure monitoring charts are completed and that staff record any escalation or action taken?
- 02How quickly will you put a positive behaviour support plan in place if someone has repeated distressed behaviour?
- 03How do you monitor food and fluid intake for people at risk of malnutrition or dehydration?
- 04What action has been taken following the recommendation to improve records about health risks and their management?
- 05How do you make sure equipment, including hoists, is available and working when people need it?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the care home, its premises and care, and assessed all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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.
Every inspection of Borrage House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 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.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.