Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Byron Court

Goodpublished 16 August 2023, 3 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Staff understood people's risks, safeguarding and medicines needs. Inspectors found an unlocked cupboard containing potentially harmful cleaning products, plus earlier gaps in water-temperature and fire-safety records, but these were addressed after the inspection.
Effective?
Good
Care plans reflected people's health needs, communication needs and aspirations. Staff had relevant training and supported people with food, drink, healthcare and decision-making.
Caring?
Good
People received kind and compassionate care. Staff respected privacy and dignity, listened to people's views and supported them to make choices.
Responsive?
Good
Support was personalised to people's communication, sensory and social needs. The home responded to complaints, involved people in planning and supported chosen activities and relationships.
Well-led?
Good
The manager and provider showed a learning-focused culture and effective quality checks. Staff knew people well, and the home worked with health and social care professionals.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, August 2023

Byron Court was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with a few safety checks needing continued monitoring.

This was the first inspection since the home registered in September 2022. It was unannounced. An inspector visited on 26 July 2023 and the inspection activity continued until 2 August, including telephone calls with relatives.

Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, staff, a relative and a visiting health professional. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, incident records, staff training, rotas, recruitment, medicines records and quality checks. They found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who understood their needs.

All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Some safety checks had needed improvement, including an unlocked cleaning-products cupboard and gaps in water-temperature and fire-safety records. These issues were dealt with after the inspection, and the home was asked to show that the improvements remain in place.

What inspectors praised
  • Choice and independence

    People were supported to make choices, control their lives and develop greater independence. Restrictions were used only when necessary and after other approaches had failed.

    “The service supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence and they had control over their own lives.” from the report
  • Kind, respectful care

    Staff used calm and respectful approaches. They understood when people needed privacy and responded to emotional distress and sensory needs.

    “People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care plans reflected people's individual needs, communication styles, interests and aspirations. People were supported to take part in activities that mattered to them.

    “Staff provided people with personalised, proactive and co-ordinated support in line with their communication plans, sensory assessment and support plans.” from the report
  • Staff knowledge and staffing

    Inspectors found enough trained staff to meet people's needs, including support for activities. Staff knew people well and regular staff cover was used to reduce disruption.

    “The service had sufficient trained staff, including for 2:1 support for people to take part in activities how and when they wanted.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Safety checks needed embedding

    minor

    The cupboard containing potentially harmful cleaning products was not locked, although it was not accessible to people and was secured after the inspection. The home had also identified gaps in water-temperature records and outstanding fire-audit actions, which inspectors said needed to remain embedded.

    “We found the COSHH cupboard containing cleaning products which could be potentially harmful if ingested was not locked.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are you checking that water temperatures and fire-safety actions continue to be recorded and reviewed?
  2. 02How would you maintain consistent staffing for my relative, including when agency staff are used?
  3. 03How do you make sure any restrictions during periods of distress remain necessary, least restrictive and reviewed?
  4. 04Who is currently responsible for management, and what is the progress of the application to register the new manager?

This was the first unannounced inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC key questions, including infection prevention and control and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 August 2023 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Byron Court

Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.

  1. August 2023Goodcurrent rating
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Byron Court →

  2. September 2022

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 September 2022.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire

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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.

“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
Melanie B., about Ernest C.
See live-in carers near NottinghamshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.