CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Old Barn Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found trained staff, safe medicine arrangements, suitable risk assessments and enough staff on the rota to support people safely. They also noted five vacancies and staff reports of pressure when bank staff were not available.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, and staff had induction, training, supervision and appraisals. Everyone had a DoLS application pending because earlier authorisations had expired.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were observed to be treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and supported their individual communication needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's preferences, life histories and communication methods. People took part in activities including sensory sessions, cinema trips, visits and outings.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open, well-managed service with positive leadership, teamwork and audits that led to follow-up action. The manager understood their responsibilities, although some staff needed further reminders about the duty of candour.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Old Barn Close rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staffing and authorisation issues to check.
The inspection visit took place on 28 May 2019 without notice. One inspector observed care, spoke with staff, reviewed care and medicine records, checked recruitment files and audits, and contacted a relative and a friend. Some people could not explain their experiences, so the inspector also used observation.
The home was supporting five adults with learning disabilities and sensory or physical disabilities. Inspectors found safe medicine systems, suitable risk assessments, trained staff, personalised care and good links with health professionals. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and were supported to communicate and take part in activities.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings in all five areas. The report says legal requirements were met. It also noted five staff vacancies at the time, one example of poor practice when supporting someone to drink, and expired DoLS authorisations that had been reapplied for.
Safe medicines
Medicines were given by trained staff, stored securely and checked against records. Inspectors found the records accurate and the stocks correct.
“Medicine records which were completed when medicines were administered were up to date and accurate.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were supported by staff who knew them well. Inspectors saw care that respected people's dignity, equality and individual needs.
“People were treated as equal regardless of their disability, age, gender or lifestyle choice.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were offered activities suited to their communication and sensory needs. Inspectors noted more in-house activities than at the previous inspection.
“Since our last inspection in 2016 we noticed there were more in-house activities, which included sensory sessions.” from the report
Staff vacancies and pressure
needs fixingThere were five vacancies and one member of staff was on long-term leave during the visit. Staff said they felt under pressure unless bank staff were available, although the rota showed enough staff each day to support people safely.
“We only have enough staff when we have bank staff in. It puts us under pressure to get things done.” from the report
One poor example during a drink
minorMost staff supported people positively with food and drink, but one staff member stood over a person and did not interact with them. The manager said this would be addressed with the team.
“One staff member did not interact with the person they were supporting and stood over them whilst supporting them with a drink.” from the report
DoLS applications pending
needs fixingEveryone living in the home had an application pending because earlier authorisations had expired. The manager had reapplied, but approval was still awaited at the inspection.
“Everyone living in the service had a DoLS application pending.” from the report
- 01How many staff vacancies remain now, and how do you make sure shifts are safely covered without putting pressure on permanent staff?
- 02What action was taken after inspectors saw a staff member standing over someone while helping them drink?
- 03Have all the outstanding DoLS applications now been authorised, and how are any restrictions reviewed while applications are pending?
- 04Was the planned palliative care training in September 2019 completed, and what end of life support can the home provide now?
- 05How will you support my relative's communication needs, including the use of photographs, gestures or sensory activities?
This was a planned inspection covering all five areas of the service, including care, accommodation, records, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 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.
What inspectors found, October 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found caring, safe support, with a temporary staffing concern that was addressed after the inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 and 13 September 2016. One inspector reviewed care records, medicines records, staff records, audits and other documents. They spoke with staff, relatives and professionals, and observed care because residents could not give verbal feedback.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Staff knew residents well and supported their health, communication, independence, choices and activities. The home was clean, medicines were managed safely, and care plans and risk assessments were up to date.
Inspectors were concerned that for a couple of hours on a Monday morning, one staff member was left supporting four residents while two staff took another person shopping. After the inspection, the home arranged an extra staff member during this time. Inspectors also noted some training records were not up to date, but the provider had already identified this and planned a new training programme.
Staff knew residents well
Staff understood residents' likes, dislikes, communication and support needs. They used facial expressions, body language and vocal sounds to understand how people were responding.
“Staff knew people well, they were aware of their likes and dislikes and what needs they required support with.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff asking permission, protecting privacy and encouraging independence. Residents appeared relaxed and responded positively to staff.
“People were treated with respect by staff this was evident in the way staff addressed people by their name and their interactions were friendly and respectful.” from the report
Individual activities
Activities were chosen around residents' interests, abilities and histories. These included shopping, farm visits, cooking, aromatherapy, pet therapy and visits to an animal centre.
“Activities included shopping, farm visits, visiting the RSPCA centre, aromatherapy, cooking and pet therapy.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked with health professionals and followed specialist advice about food, drinks and other care. People's weights and health needs were monitored.
“People were assisted to access the healthcare support they needed when they required it.” from the report
Staffing during shopping
seriousFor a couple of hours on Monday morning, one staff member was left with four residents while two staff took another person shopping. The home said it would provide an extra staff member during this time after the inspection.
“This left one staff member with four people to support.” from the report
Training records
needs fixingSome staff training was out of date or not shown as updated. The provider had identified this and planned a new training programme.
“We were concerned the matrix did not show updated training records for some staff and some staff training was not up to date.” from the report
Bank staff supervision
needs fixingThere were no supervision records for bank staff at the time of inspection. The provider said bank staff working regular hours would receive supervision from the home manager.
“We noted there were no supervision records for "bank" staff.” from the report
- 01How is the extra staff cover arranged during the weekly shopping trip, and is it still in place?
- 02Are all staff training records now up to date, including medicine training?
- 03How are bank staff supervised and kept informed about residents' changing needs?
- 04How do staff recognise when a resident may need pain relief or another as-required medicine?
- 05How are residents and families involved in reviewing care plans and choosing activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; inspectors reviewed records and observed care, but residents were unable to give verbal feedback. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 October 2016 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 Old Barn Close
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,020 to £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.