CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Burgess Care
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm. Staff understood safeguarding, risks, restraint, medicines and infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and developed with people and relatives. Staff understood communication needs and responded to changes in people's emotional and physical wellbeing.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective management systems, suitable training and a positive culture. Staff and relatives said they felt listened to and supported.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Burgess Care was rated Good; inspectors found safe, responsive care, but the home relied heavily on agency staff.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 17 March 2022. Inspectors reviewed Safe, Responsive and Well-led because they had received concerns about staffing and the culture of the home. They spoke with staff, managers, one person and eight relatives, and reviewed care, risk, medicines, safety and management records.
The home had enough staff to meet people's assessed needs, and staff understood safeguarding, physical restraint and infection control. Care plans were personalised and communication needs were understood. Medicines were reviewed to reduce over-medication, including through the STOMP principles.
The main weakness was staff vacancies. A significant number of shifts were covered by agency staff, although the provider was recruiting permanent staff and agency workers were given an induction. Inspectors also reminded the manager to notify CQC about all safeguarding referrals.
The overall rating was Good. This improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in 2019. The report says the provider had completed its action plan and was no longer in breach of regulations, but Effective and Caring were not assessed during this focused inspection.
Personalised care
Assessments and care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and communication methods. Relatives were involved in reviews.
“Holistic assessments of needs were carried out and developed into person-centred care plans with guidance for staff to follow.” from the report
Safe support
Staff understood safeguarding and risk management. Physical restraint was used as a last resort, with reflection afterwards to improve support.
“Staff understood that physical restraint should only be used as a last resort.” from the report
Careful medicines use
The home worked to reduce unnecessary medicines and followed STOMP principles. Records were checked and were accurately completed.
“Regular medicine reviews were focussed on ensuring people were not over medicated.” from the report
Management and training
Inspectors found quality checks and relevant training in place. Relatives and staff spoke positively about the management and working culture.
“Staff received training relevant to their role and experience to equip them with the necessary skills to support people effectively and safely.” from the report
Agency staffing
needs fixingStaff vacancies meant a significant number of shifts were covered by agency workers. The provider was recruiting permanent staff, but inspectors described improvement in this area as work in progress.
“However, staff vacancies meant a significant number of shifts had to be covered by agency staff.” from the report
Safeguarding notifications
minorThe manager had referred two safeguarding concerns to the local authority but had not notified CQC about them. Inspectors reminded the manager of this responsibility.
“However, we reminded the registered manager of their responsibility to notify us of all safeguarding referrals.” from the report
- 01How many permanent care staff are currently employed, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's communication needs, risks and care plan before working independently?
- 03What action has been taken to ensure every safeguarding referral is notified to CQC when required?
- 04How are people being supported to return to activities and routines outside the home after the restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic?
- 05What were the Effective and Caring ratings at the previous inspection, and when will these areas next be fully assessed?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 April 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, July 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, effective and caring support, but care was not always personalised and leadership was inconsistent.
Inspectors visited without warning on 6 June 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They also checked care and medicines records, staff files, training records, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. People were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, staff had suitable training and people were treated with kindness and respect. Staff also worked with health professionals and supported people's independence.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive and Well-led. Care plans and reviews were not always up to date, and records sometimes conflicted. High staff turnover, agency staffing, management changes and vacancies affected consistency and people's opportunities to take part in activities. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in July 2017.
People were kept safe
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Risks were assessed, and people were supported to take positive risks while maintaining their safety.
“Staff understood the signs of abuse and how to recognise and protect people from this.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Inspectors found organised medicines systems, safe storage and administration, staff training and regular checks of staff competence.
“Medicines systems were organised, and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were supported patiently and respectfully. Staff promoted independence, listened to choices and helped people keep in touch with important people.
“We observed staff supporting people patiently when they became upset and encouraging them.” from the report
Good health and daily support
People received meals, snacks and drinks that matched their needs and choices. Staff worked with health professionals and followed professional advice.
“People were supported to access meals, snacks and drinks in line with their needs and choices.” from the report
Staffing affected personalised activities
needs fixingThere were 19 staff vacancies, high turnover and use of agency staff. This meant temporary staff did not always know people's preferences, and staffing levels sometimes reduced opportunities for activities.
“Temporary staff did not always know people in the same way to understand their behaviours, choices and needs.” from the report
Communication was inconsistent
needs fixingRelatives gave mixed views about communication between houses. Some important information about people's needs and preferences was not always passed to new staff.
“The impact of the high turnover of staff was information about the person such as liking certain drinks or how to deal with certain behaviours well, was not passed on.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff vacancies are there now, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02How do you make sure temporary staff understand each person's communication, preferences, behaviours and support needs?
- 03Have all care plans and health reviews been updated and checked against both paper and computer records?
- 04What has changed in the management team since this inspection, and is there now a registered manager?
- 05How are you making sure people have enough staff support to take part in social activities and interests?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating, following concerns about staff practices; those concerns were not substantiated during the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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.
Every inspection of Burgess Care
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.