CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Burgh House Residential Care Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention measures, visiting arrangements, testing and protective equipment. They were only somewhat assured about some premises hygiene and the detail in the infection control policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Burgh House Residential Care Home Limited was inspected but not rated; infection controls were mostly assured, with some premises and policy improvements needed.
This was a targeted inspection on 22 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home. The visit was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors were assured that visitors, new admissions, testing, personal protective equipment and infection outbreaks were being managed safely. Staff had relevant infection control training and were wearing protective equipment appropriately.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about the condition and hygiene of some areas. Walls and doors needed cosmetic work, some toilet brushes needed replacing, and limescale was found on several taps. The infection control policy also needed updating.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection gave findings about infection control and visiting arrangements, but it did not provide a new quality rating.
Visitor infection checks
The home followed current COVID-19 guidance and carried out comprehensive checks for visitors arriving at the home.
“The provider ensured current government guidelines in relation to COVID-19 were being followed by staff and visitors to reduce the risk of infection to people living at the home.” from the report
Protective equipment and training
There was enough protective equipment, staff used it appropriately, and staff had completed relevant infection control training.
“There was enough Personal Protective Equipment such as aprons, gloves and masks.” from the report
Family visits
The home provided an indoor visiting pod, supported visits outside the home and facilitated visits in line with the guidance.
“People were supported to see family and friends which included trips outside of the care home.” from the report
Positive relationships
Inspectors saw positive interactions between staff and residents during the visit.
“We observed lots of positive interactions between staff and people during our visit.” from the report
Premises needed attention
needs fixingSome walls and doors needed cosmetic work so they could be cleaned effectively. Some toilet brushes needed replacing and limescale was found on several taps.
“Some areas of the service required attention, such as cosmetic work to walls and doors to ensure cleaning could be carried out effectively.” from the report
Policy needed updating
needs fixingThe infection prevention and control policy did not yet include enough detail about the latest government guidance. The provider was reviewing and updating it.
“Some areas needed additional detail to ensure they covered the most up to date Government guidance.” from the report
- 01Have the walls and doors identified by inspectors been repaired so they can be cleaned effectively?
- 02Have the toilet brushes been replaced and the limescale on the taps removed?
- 03Has the infection prevention and control policy been fully updated with the latest government guidance?
- 04How does the home check that infection control arrangements remain effective?
- 05What visiting options are currently available, including the visiting pod and trips outside the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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
Burgh House Residential Care Home Limited was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and clear improvements, but noted gaps in activities, staffing at busy times and some records.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 June 2018. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, maintenance information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were generally protected from harm, supported by trained staff, treated with kindness and involved in their care. The home also supported people's nutrition, healthcare and personal interests.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in February 2017. Earlier problems with medicines and management systems had been addressed, and there were no longer any breaches of regulations. Inspectors still found that some people had little meaningful interaction during the day, and some feedback suggested staffing could be stretched at certain times.
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had addressed the earlier problems with medicines and management oversight. Inspectors found it was no longer breaching regulations.
“At this inspection in June 2018, we found improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors observed staff protecting people's privacy and dignity during care.
“Staff treated people in a caring and compassionate manner.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans included people's health needs, preferences, histories and future wishes. This helped staff understand how people wanted to be supported.
“Care plans had been improved significantly, and contained detailed assessments of people's health and social care needs, and their hopes and wishes for the future.” from the report
Strong management checks
The home used audits and feedback to identify problems and make changes. This included checks on medicines, care plans, safety and infection control.
“There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People's dietary needs, allergies and nutritional risks were recorded and shared with staff. People had regular access to healthcare professionals.
“People's nutritional, dietary and hydration needs were met as they received sufficient food and drink to nourish them and maintain their health and well-being.” from the report
CCTV consent records
needs fixingCCTV was used in several areas, but there were initially no mental capacity assessments or best interests decisions for people who could not consent. The manager said letters and best interests meetings were being arranged after the inspection.
“However, there were no mental capacity assessments or best interests decisions in place in relation to the use of the CCTV.” from the report
Medicines storage checks
needs fixingThe temperatures of medicines kept in some people's rooms were not being checked. The manager said this would be put in place immediately.
“However, some people's medicines were stored in their rooms in a lockable cabinet, but the temperatures of these medicines were not being checked.” from the report
- 01How many staff are scheduled between 6pm and 8pm, and what happens if people's needs increase during that period?
- 02How will you provide meaningful interaction every day, including at weekends, for people who do not join group activities?
- 03Have you introduced the planned Gold Standard Framework for end of life care, and how do you record each person's wishes and comfort preferences?
- 04What mental capacity and best interests records are now in place for the use of CCTV?
- 05How are medicines kept in people's rooms monitored, including temperature checks and the checking of handwritten medicine records for reablement stays?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the whole service, including the main care home and the separate Oak Lodge reablement unit; all five ratings were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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 Burgh House Residential Care Home Limited
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Burgh House Residential Care Home Limited →
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Burgh House Residential Care Home Limited →
- April 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 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 Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.