CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Byfield Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care but gaps in health risk assessments and quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 and 19 November 2021. Inspectors spoke with one person, three relatives and six staff. They reviewed care, medicines, staffing, training and management records.
The home provided caring and personalised support. People were treated with dignity, helped to make choices, supported to stay independent and encouraged to take part in activities. Medicines, staffing, food, healthcare support and infection control were generally managed well.
However, some important health risks were not properly assessed or explained to staff. This included constipation, diabetes and choking. Audits had not always found these problems, so the home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led.
The overall rating means the home was not consistently meeting the expected standard. The previous rating was Good in May 2019, under the previous provider. The home was asked to produce an action plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress and return.
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were stored at the correct temperatures. Staff had medicine training and competency checks, including guidance for medicines given when needed.
“Medicines were stored safely and in line with best practice guidelines.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices about personal care, food and daily routines. Staff encouraged people to do tasks for themselves.
“Staff encouraged people to make their own choices and maintain their independence.” from the report
Activities and communication
People had individual activity plans and could join activities both in and outside the home. Information, including complaints information, was available in easy-read formats.
“People were supported to take part in various activities in and out of the service.” from the report
Positive management culture
Relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team. Staff said they felt supported and could raise concerns.
“The registered manager had developed a positive culture within the service.” from the report
Health risks were not fully assessed
seriousCare plans and risk assessments did not always explain how staff should manage constipation, diabetes or choking. This created an increased risk that people could be harmed.
“The provider failed to assess and mitigate specific health risks to people.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingCare plan audits did not always identify missing information about people's health risks. The manager acted after inspectors raised the concerns.
“Care plan audits were not always effective in identifying shortfalls in care plans and risk assessments related to people's specific health needs.” from the report
Recruitment and training records
needs fixingOne staff file did not contain a full work history. Some staff training had expired, although practical training had been scheduled.
“One staff files did not contain a full work history.” from the report
- 01What detailed risk assessments and staff guidance are now in place for constipation, diabetes and choking?
- 02How do you check that care plan audits identify all individual health risks before they affect people's care?
- 03Have all staff recruitment files been checked to confirm they contain a full work history?
- 04Which staff training had expired, and has the practical and face-to-face training now been completed?
- 05Where is the anti-choking device kept now, and how quickly can staff access it if needed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, and was the first inspection under the new provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 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.
Every inspection of Byfield Court
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- December 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2020.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.