CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Byron Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Byron Court Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about COVID-19 infection control, with some policy updates still needed.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 11 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, and at whether staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infections. There were checks on visitors, testing, vaccination, personal protective equipment, social distancing and isolation. Four people had tested positive at the time, and new admissions had been stopped until people and staff tested negative.
The home supported people who were isolating or at particular risk. It arranged different types of visits and helped people keep in touch with relatives. Inspectors said the infection prevention and control arrangements were good, but the service was inspected but not rated.
Managing admissions during the outbreak
The home stopped new admissions while people and staff were still testing positive. This was intended to limit the spread of infection.
“They had made the decision to close to any further admittances until all service users and staff were testing negative.” from the report
Support during isolation
People who were isolating or at extreme risk were supported in their rooms where possible. Staff were allocated to provide their care, meals and cleaning.
“Specific staff were allocated to support all their needs, including their meals and cleaning to limit contact with other staff and reduce any risks.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home offered arranged visiting options designed to reduce infection risks, including window, garden and separate-room visits.
“Visitors were able to access window visits, garden visits and visits in a specific room that was accessed from outside without the need for visitors to enter the service.” from the report
Testing and protective equipment
Inspectors found regular staff testing, visitor checks and enough PPE available for staff and visitors.
“There was enough PPE available for staff and visitors.” from the report
Policy needed updating
needs fixingInspectors said the infection prevention and control policy needed to cover bare-below-the-elbows practice and risks for Black, Asian and minority ethnic staff.
“The policy needed to reflect the services. bare below the elbows and consider the management of risks for BAME staff.” from the report
Further infection control development
minorThe provider was signposted to resources to improve its approach. The report also identified a need for risk assessments about keeping the doors of people who were isolating open and for vaccination information at admission.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the infection prevention and control policy since this inspection?
- 02How do you assess the risks for people who are isolating, including whether their doors should remain open?
- 03How are new admissions checked for coronavirus test results and vaccination information?
- 04What are your current arrangements for visiting during an outbreak?
- 05How often are staff tested, and how do you check vaccination records for staff and visiting professionals?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures during a COVID-19 outbreak; it did not rate the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 January 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, November 2019
Byron Court Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some areas of the building still needing updating.
The inspection was unannounced and followed concerns about safety, cleanliness, dignity and dementia training. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that staffing levels and quality checks had improved since the previous inspection. People were attended to promptly, medicines were managed safely, and care plans gave staff useful information.
People and relatives described the care as kind and respectful. Inspectors found good support with food, healthcare, activities and communication. Some toilets and bathrooms, and parts of the décor, were stark and needed updating, although the home had plans for improvements.
Improved staffing
Inspectors found people were attended to promptly, and people and relatives were happy with staffing levels. This addressed an area for improvement from the previous inspection.
“We saw people were attended to promptly by staff throughout our inspection and staff were regularly visible throughout the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed respectful communication and caring interactions.
“We observed staff treating people with dignity and respect throughout our inspection.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans included information about people's backgrounds, communication, health and personal needs. People and relatives were involved in reviews.
“People's care plans were person-centred and gave staff the information needed to support people safely and effectively.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home offered activities, trips and one-off events. It also supported people's religious preferences and helped people maintain relationships.
“There was a good programme of activities for people living at the home to take part in, both at the home and out on day trips.” from the report
Improved oversight
The provider had strengthened its audits and quality monitoring since the previous inspection. Staff described a supportive management culture.
“The service had a range of effective audits in place to monitor, assess and improve the quality and safety of service being provided at the home.” from the report
Some areas need updating
minorAlthough the ground floor was inviting and some wet rooms had been renovated, other toilets, bathrooms and parts of the décor were stark and needed updating. The manager said plans were already in place.
“However, the décor and toilets/bathrooms in other parts of the home was relatively stark and in need of updating.” from the report
Manager registration
minorThere was no manager registered with the CQC at the time of the inspection. The manager was in the process of applying to register.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with registering the manager with the CQC?
- 02Which toilets, bathrooms and other areas were due to be updated, and when were the works planned to finish?
- 03How are staffing levels monitored now, and what happens if the home is short staffed?
- 04How does the home make sure staff have the training needed to support people living with dementia?
- 05How are families involved in reviewing care plans and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC key questions, prompted partly by concerns about safety, cleanliness, dignity and dementia training; inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from those concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 November 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 Byron Court Care Home
8 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 April 2012.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
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 £1,270 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.