CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Burnworthy House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable safeguarding, risk management, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control arrangements. Equipment and safety systems were checked, and accidents were reviewed for trends.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and recorded in personalised care plans. Staff had training and induction, people received suitable food and healthcare, and their consent and best interests were considered.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind, respectful and patient interactions. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and promoted privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People could follow their routines and interests and had a wide range of activities. Staff supported contact with families, responded to complaints and provided personalised end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were visible and approachable. The home used audits, meetings and other ways of gathering views to monitor care and make improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with mixed views about the food.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 September 2021. Inspectors spoke with 20 people living at the home, nine staff members and two visitors. They observed care, meals and a staff handover, and checked care plans, recruitment records, safety records, complaints and other documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, listened to and well cared for. Inspectors saw staff being kind, respectful and reassuring, with enough staff available to meet people's needs.
People had personalised care plans, choices about their daily routines, activities and access to healthcare. The home had systems for medicines, safeguarding, infection control, complaints and quality checks. Views about the food were mixed, and most staff said they were looking forward to more practical face-to-face training.
The previous inspection, published in December 2019, also rated the home Good. The report says the inspection was part of a random check of services rated Good or Outstanding, and included checks on infection prevention and control.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm and patient interactions. Staff spent time talking with people and offered reassurance when needed.
“We saw some lovely, kind and patient interactions between people and staff.” from the report
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and listened to. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, and risks were assessed.
“People lived in a home where they felt safe and well cared for.” from the report
Personalised choices
Care plans included people's needs, wishes, interests and important relationships. People were supported to make choices about their daily lives.
“People were able to make choices about their day to day lives and were encouraged to continue to follow their interests and hobbies.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home offered varied activities and helped people stay connected with family, friends and the local community.
“People had access to a wide range of social stimulation and activities.” from the report
Visible management
The manager and deputy were regularly present and people knew who they were. Audits and other checks were used to monitor care.
“The registered manager and deputy were very visible in the home which enabled them to constantly monitor practice and seek people's views.” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorPeople did not all agree about the food. Some praised it, while others found it bland.
“There were mixed views about the food served. Comments included, "Food is wonderful," "The food is good and there is variety" and "Sometimes the food is rather bland.” from the report
More practical training wanted
minorStaff said the training was good, but most staff wanted to return to more practical, face-to-face training.
“Although staff said training was good, most staff said they were looking forward to getting back to more practical face to face training.” from the report
- 01How do you respond when a resident feels the food is bland, and how are residents' food preferences recorded?
- 02How much practical, face-to-face training do care staff now receive?
- 03How will you support my relative's interests, hobbies and usual daily routines?
- 04How will you keep my relative in contact with family and friends?
- 05How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs, wishes or health change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and infection prevention and control; the previous inspection had also rated every area Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 October 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, December 2019
Burnworthy House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some risk information not fully recorded.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 and 6 November 2019. One inspector spoke with 12 residents, two visitors and seven care staff. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, meeting minutes and safety records.
The home received Good ratings in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff were kind and there were enough permanent staff to meet people's needs.
The home offered personalised support and many activities. People were helped to stay independent, keep links with the village and maintain relationships with family and friends.
Inspectors found two recording weaknesses. Some falls risks did not have recorded control measures, and care plans did not always clearly show how assessment information should be used. The overall rating remained Good, as staff knew people's needs and were meeting them.
Kind and compassionate staff
Inspectors saw staff respond quickly when someone became upset and provide comfort in a dignified way. People said staff were kind and supportive.
“Staff demonstrated kindness and compassion towards people.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff took time to understand people's backgrounds, preferences and wishes. They arranged individual experiences and supported people to live active, fulfilling lives.
“People received care and support which was extremely personalised to their needs and wishes.” from the report
Strong community links
People continued to use local facilities and take part in village events. The home also welcomed community groups and children.
“Burnworthy House was exceptionally well integrated into the community meaning people were not isolated.” from the report
Stable staffing
Inspectors found enough permanent staff, with many experienced staff members who knew residents well. No agency staff were being used to cover staffing shortfalls.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people's needs and ensure their safety.” from the report
Falls risks were not fully recorded
needs fixingTwo people had been assessed as being at medium risk of falls, but the records did not say what measures would reduce those risks. Staff understood what to do, and neither person had fallen.
“In some cases, risks were identified but there was no recorded information to state how these risks would be minimised.” from the report
Care plans were not always clear
needs fixingThe care plan format did not always make it clear how assessment information should be put into practice. Inspectors gave moving and handling assessments as an example.
“The care plan format used by the provider did not always give clear guidance for how they should be completed to easily show all aspects of a person's care.” from the report
- 01How are falls risks recorded, including the control measures for each person?
- 02How do you make sure moving and handling assessments are turned into clear instructions in each person's care plan?
- 03What changes have you made since the November 2019 inspection?
- 04How do you make sure activities and community links are matched to each resident's interests and wishes?
- 05How are residents and their families involved when care plans are reviewed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the previous Good ratings reviewed and retained. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 December 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 Burnworthy House
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.