CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Highbarrow Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including the use of protective equipment, hygiene, admissions and outbreak management. They recommended further work to ensure visiting arrangements were individualised and fully discussed with people and visitors.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found infection controls and visiting arrangements generally reassuring, with a recommendation to make visiting more individualised.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 16 February 2023. It looked at infection prevention and control, including visiting arrangements, after concerns about visits were received.
Inspectors spoke with five people living at the home, 18 relatives, three staff members, the registered manager and the nominated individual. Relatives said the home was consistently clean and free from odours.
The home used risk assessments for visiting. Visitors could come at any time without an appointment. Masks were encouraged, and COVID-19 tests were considered appropriate when a visitor could not wear a mask.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a full set of ratings for the five areas.
Clean environment
Relatives consistently described the home as clean and without unpleasant smells.
“All relatives told us the home was consistently clean and free from odours; relatives and visitors commented how clean the home was at all times.” from the report
Relatives could discuss visiting
Relatives spoke positively about the registered manager being approachable about infection control and visiting arrangements.
“All relatives were complimentary of the registered manager and their approachability if they wished to discuss infection control or visiting measures in place.” from the report
Infection controls
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection prevention, protective equipment, hygiene and possible outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visiting arrangements needed more individual consideration
needs fixingThe provider was asked to keep considering current guidance and to involve people and visitors fully so that visiting decisions were tailored to each person.
“We recommend the provider continue to consider government and local guidance and ensure they fully engage with people and visitors about the visiting arrangements in the home to ensure an individualised approach.” from the report
- 01How do you decide whether a person needs a mask or COVID-19 test for a visit?
- 02How do you involve each person and their visitors when deciding visiting arrangements?
- 03Can visitors come at any time without making an appointment?
- 04How do you check that infection prevention measures remain effective?
- 05What action have you taken following the recommendation to make visiting arrangements individualised?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, including visiting arrangements; it did not provide ratings for the other four areas or an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 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.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but some care records and management arrangements still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 February 2020. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, safe medicines administration, kind care, support with health and nutrition, and activities based on people's preferences.
There were still some weaknesses. The new care planning system was not fully embedded, so records did not always reflect people's care. Medicines were given safely, but some recording was incomplete. Information was not always available in formats that everyone could understand, and there was no CQC-registered manager in post at the time.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw staff respond promptly to call bells and support people without rushing. Staffing levels were reviewed as people's needs changed.
“We observed staff supporting people in an unrushed way, call bells were answered quickly and there was always a staff member available in the lounge/dining areas.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with patience, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“Staff interacted with people in a caring way and showed patience when they supported people.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home improved from Requires Improvement. The provider was no longer in breach of the two regulations identified at the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Care and medicines records
needs fixingThe new care planning system was still being introduced. Although medicines were administered safely, inspectors found some problems with recording medicines and completing care records.
“Although medicines were being administered safely, there were still some issues with the recording of medicines and care records had not always been completed as required.” from the report
Information formats
needs fixingComplaints information and activity schedules were not available in pictorial formats for people who might need them. This could make it harder for some people to understand information independently.
“These were not available in a pictorial format if people needed help understanding this information.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no manager registered with CQC during the inspection. A new manager had been appointed but had not started work or applied to register.
“There was not a manager registered with us (CQC) at the time of the inspection, which is a condition of the provider's registration.” from the report
- 01Is there now a manager registered with CQC, and when did they start?
- 02How do you check that the new care planning system accurately reflects each person's current care?
- 03What checks are now made to ensure medicines records are complete and accurate?
- 04Can information such as complaints procedures and activity schedules be provided in a format my relative can understand?
- 05How are people's changing needs and preferences recorded and shared with all staff?
This unannounced inspection looked at the care and premises and covered all five CQC key questions; no one was receiving end-of-life care during the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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.
Every inspection of Highbarrow Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 August 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.