CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at College of St Barnabas
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, recruitment, infection control and equipment were managed appropriately.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had appropriate training and support. People were helped to access healthcare, eat and drink safely, and receive care based on their needs and choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and familiar with people's needs and preferences. People were involved in decisions and encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was flexible and personalised. People had activities, outings, spiritual support and help to maintain relationships.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers communicated well and carried out monitoring checks, but care records were not always accurate, consistent or up to date. The provider was given a recommendation to improve its systems.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but the home was not always well-led and care records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff files, accidents, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, good healthcare support and kind, respectful care. People had choices, activities and support to maintain relationships and interests.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Some care records were inaccurate, inconsistent or out of date. Staff knew people well and were providing the care needed, but the records did not always give clear or correct guidance. The provider was asked to improve its record-keeping.
The overall rating stayed Good, matching the previous inspection published in July 2017. However, the well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
Kind and consistent staff
People received care from a regular staff team who knew their needs and preferences. Inspectors observed kind and respectful interactions.
“People received their care from consistent staff who knew their needs and preferences well.” from the report
Safe care and medicines
Risks were assessed and managed. Medicines records checked by inspectors were accurate and staff were trained before administering medicines.
“Medicines were managed safely. People told us staff supported them to take their medicines on time.” from the report
Good healthcare support
Staff worked with health professionals and followed the guidance they were given. People could access a range of healthcare services.
“Staff supported people to maintain good health and to access healthcare treatment when they needed it.” from the report
Activities and spiritual support
People had access to groups, exercise, shopping trips, concerts and outings. Religious and spiritual needs were also supported.
“People had access to a wide range of activities and outings.” from the report
Care records were not always accurate
needs fixingSome care plans and assessments did not match people's current needs, and important information was recorded in different places. This created a risk of inappropriate care, although inspectors found staff knew people well and provided the support they needed.
“Records relating to people's care were not always accurate, consistent and up-to-date.” from the report
Best-interests recording
needs fixingFor one person who sometimes resisted care, staff understood that care was being provided in the person's best interests, but the required decision-making process was not recorded at the time.
“Whilst staff were clear that care was being provided in the person's best interests, there was no evidence of a best interests decision-making process.” from the report
Privacy when entering rooms
minorOne person said staff sometimes entered their room before waiting for a reply after knocking. The manager agreed to remind staff about this.
“One person told us that, although staff knocked before entering their room, they did not always wait for a reply before coming in.” from the report
Evening meals
minorMost people enjoyed the food, but two people raised concerns about the quality and portion sizes of supper. The manager agreed to address this.
“Two people told us the quality of food was not as good at supper time.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure care plans and risk assessments are accurate, consistent and up to date?
- 02How do you make sure important care instructions are easy for all staff to find?
- 03How are best-interests decisions recorded when a person resists care?
- 04What action have you taken about the concerns raised over supper portions and quality?
- 05How do you make sure staff wait for permission before entering a person's room?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the care home; the Cloisters flats were not registered as accommodation with CQC and personal care was not being provided there. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 2020 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, July 2017
College of St Barnabas was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with staffing communication worth checking.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 21 June 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, a visitor, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines systems, trained staff, respectful care and care plans that had improved since the previous inspection.
The home had remained Good since the last inspection on 10 July 2014. Inspectors noted that people generally felt safe and well cared for. They suggested that the manager should tell people about increased staffing and check whether their needs were being met.
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered, recorded and stored safely. Inspectors found no omissions on medicine records, and people said they received medicines on time.
“There were no omissions noted on the MAR sheets.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff supported people's dignity, privacy and independence. People were involved in decisions about their care and staff used their preferred names and titles.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans recorded individual preferences, needs and anxieties. Inspectors said the new electronic system had made the information clearer.
“Care plans had improved from the last inspection and now contained information on what was important to people.” from the report
Activities and spiritual support
People could choose from activities and receive one-to-one contact if they stayed in their rooms. Religious services and theology studies were available.
“An activities list was displayed with the week's events that included theology discussions, religious services, trips out to the community, external entertainers such as Morris dancers and boat trips.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found the manager visible and approachable, with regular meetings, handovers, audits and feedback opportunities.
“There was a positive culture within the home, between the people that lived there, the staff and the manager.” from the report
Check staffing levels with residents
minorThe manager had recently increased staffing, but some people were not yet aware of this. One person said staff could sometimes be hard pressed, so the manager was asked to explain the change and check whether needs were being met.
“On the whole numbers are OK, but sometimes they get hard pressed.” from the report
- 01How has the recent increase in staffing changed the support available at busy times?
- 02How will you check that my relative feels their care needs are being met?
- 03How often will my relative and family be involved in reviewing the electronic care plan?
- 04How are medicines checked, including medicines prescribed to be taken when needed?
- 05What one-to-one activities are available for people who spend time in their bedrooms?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 July 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 College of St Barnabas
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.