CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Burleigh House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some unexplained injuries were not recorded or investigated. Medicine instructions and one medicine count also had problems, and a chef was seen wearing a mask incorrectly.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this focused inspection, although people and relatives gave positive feedback about staff kindness.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this focused inspection. Inspectors did note that care plans needed to be more personalised and include all care needs.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management was visible and staff felt supported, but quality checks had failed to identify important problems with injury records and care plans.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and suitable staffing, but concerns about injuries, care records, medicines and management checks.
This was a focused inspection on 25 November 2020 after concerns about people's safety and welfare. It looked mainly at Safe and Well-led, with infection control also checked.
People and relatives said they felt safe and that staff were kind. Inspectors found suitable recruitment, training and staffing. However, some unexplained injuries were not recorded or investigated, and some care plans did not give staff enough guidance.
Medicines were mostly managed safely, but one count suggested a missed dose and one as-needed medicine did not have clear instructions. Some people were not dressed suitably for the weather, and infection control practice was not always followed.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led both fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The provider had started making changes, but inspectors said quality checks were not yet reliable.
Kind and reassuring staff
People and relatives said they felt safe and that staff were kind. Staff were observed speaking warmly and offering choices.
“People and their relatives told us they felt safe and that staff were kind.” from the report
Suitable staffing and recruitment
There were no staff vacancies at the inspection, staffing numbers had been increased, and recruitment checks were in place.
“Robust recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure staff employed were suitable to work in a care setting.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff said they received training and supervision and felt able to raise concerns with the manager. Training records were up to date.
“Staff told us training and supervisions were provided, and they felt supported.” from the report
Positive partnership working
The home worked with visiting professionals, the local authority and Public Health England during the pandemic.
“The provider and the registered manager were open to feedback and wanted to use this to improve and develop the service further.” from the report
Injuries were not consistently recorded
seriousSome bruises and skin tears were not included in the incident records. This meant the manager did not know about all injuries and could not investigate them or look for patterns.
“The registered manager was not aware of all injuries and told us therefore an investigation into injuries was not completed” from the report
Care plans lacked important detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain people's preferences or how to reduce risks during care. One person needed guidance for transfers involving a stand aid.
“care plans needed further development to ensure they were personalised and included all care needs.” from the report
Medicines records were incomplete
seriousOne as-needed medicine had no care plan explaining when to give it. A medicine count also found one extra tablet, suggesting a missed dose.
“However, for medicines prescribed on an as needed basis for one person we reviewed, there was not a care plans to instruct staff when this would be needed.” from the report
Some people's comfort and clothing needed more attention
needs fixingSome people were not dressed suitably for the weather. One person was cold, and another was wet from saliva and food without clothing protection or an offer to change.
“The appearance and comfort of people who were more dependent, had not always been considered.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home's audits had not identified failures in injury recording and care planning. New systems were being introduced but still needed further development.
“However, the audits had not been fully effective as the points raised on the inspection had not been identified through quality assurance systems.” from the report
Infection control was not always followed
needs fixingThe chef was seen wearing a mask on the chin while responsible for people's food. The home's COVID-19 policy also had not been updated, although extra guidance had been shared.
“However, we noted that the chef had their mask on their chin.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure every bruise, skin tear or other injury is recorded, investigated and reviewed for patterns?
- 02How are care plans now kept personalised and updated with each person's care needs, clothing preferences and moving and handling risks?
- 03How do you check that as-needed medicines have clear instructions, and how do you prevent missed doses?
- 04What checks now make sure people are dressed appropriately, comfortable and offered protection or a change of clothes when needed?
- 05What action has been taken to ensure staff follow mask and other infection control rules when preparing or serving food?
This was a focused inspection following concerns about safety and welfare, covering Safe and Well-led and infection prevention and control; it did not assess all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 April 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, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but staffing during busy periods and food hygiene needed prompt attention.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 13 September 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, the registered manager and the provider. They also reviewed care records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated kindly, received personalised care, had access to activities and were supported to make choices. They also found suitable arrangements for medicines, staff training, safeguarding and health care support.
There were some problems. Staffing did not always meet people's needs on higher-needs units during busy periods. Food hygiene practices were not always followed, including uncovered desserts and undated sandwiches in a fridge. The home took immediate action on both issues, and the overall rating remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors saw staff being attentive, patient and familiar with people's preferences.
“Staff were attentive, patient and they knew people well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included individual guidance, including support for behaviour that may challenge. People were supported to make choices and maintain their independence.
“Care plans were person centred.” from the report
Training and support
Staff received training, induction, supervision and information at handovers. The home also had staff champions in areas such as dementia, nutrition, falls and wound care.
“New staff received an induction before starting in the home and they worked alongside experienced staff to enable them to get familiar with the people they supported.” from the report
Activities and engagement
The home offered a range of activities, including art, animal visits, exercise, yoga and church services. Inspectors saw people taking part in activities during the visit.
“The event was popular and everyone had the opportunity to participate.” from the report
Quality improvement
Audits covered areas including infection control, care plans and medicines. Inspectors saw that completed actions were recorded, including replacing carpets.
“There were effective quality assurance systems in place.” from the report
Staffing at busy times
seriousOn units where people's needs were higher, there were not always enough staff during busy periods. The home increased staffing to two staff members and carried out observations over the following four days.
“However, on the units where people's needs were higher, we found that staffing levels did not always meet people's needs during busy periods.” from the report
Food storage and hygiene
seriousSandwiches in the fridge were not dated and some desserts were stored uncovered. Inspectors said this created a contamination risk, and the home said it would address the issue immediately.
“Safe food hygiene practices were not always adhered to. We noted in the kitchen that sandwiches stored in the fridge did not have a date as required and that desserts prepared by staff were stored in the fridge uncovered.” from the report
Care plan reviews
minorSome people and relatives were unsure whether they had taken part in a care plan review. Inspectors found that reviews had taken place and that involvement was expected.
“Some people and their relatives we spoke with were unsure if they had had a review of their care plan.” from the report
- 01How many staff are now scheduled on the higher-needs units during busy periods, and how do you check that this remains enough?
- 02What checks are now in place to make sure food in the fridge is dated and covered?
- 03How will you make sure residents and relatives are clearly invited to care plan reviews and understand what was agreed?
- 04How are staffing checks included in your regular quality assurance system now?
- 05What activities would be suitable for my relative, and how would you adapt them if their needs or abilities changed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, and the home remained Good in each one. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 October 2017 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 Burleigh House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £980 to £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.