CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Pamela Barnett
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risk assessments were reviewed monthly or when needs changed. Inspectors found safe medicines practice, suitable staffing, effective safeguarding and good infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and support for people's complex needs. The home worked with health professionals and supported people with nutrition, hydration, healthcare and lawful decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People and their representatives were involved in care decisions and their communication needs were understood.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and ways of communicating. People were supported with activities, relationships, complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found strong management oversight, regular audits and a person-centred culture. Quality systems had improved since the previous inspection and were being used to drive further improvement.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was a planned inspection on 22 June 2021. One inspector reviewed care records, medicines, staff files, training, incidents and quality checks. They observed care during meals, activities and medicines rounds, and spoke with staff, professionals and relatives.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, received their medicines safely and had enough suitable staff to meet their needs.
Care was personalised and people were supported to communicate, make choices, stay healthy and keep in touch with family and friends. Staff were described as kind, respectful and knowledgeable about people's complex needs.
The previous inspection, published in July 2019, rated the service Requires Improvement and found a breach of regulation. Inspectors found that the required improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach.
Updated risk planning
The home had reviewed and updated care plans and risk assessments. Staff followed them in practice and responded to changing needs.
“At this inspection people's risk assessments were regularly reviewed and accurately identified and recorded people's changing needs and how to manage them safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff supporting people patiently and reassuringly. People's dignity, privacy, choices and independence were respected.
“People experienced caring relationships where staff treated them with kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care.” from the report
Personalised communication
The home used individual communication profiles and tools such as eye tracking, signs, pictures and gestures to help people express their wishes.
“Each person had a comprehensive individualised communication profile and support plan.” from the report
Improved management oversight
The provider had strengthened its quality team and introduced regular audits and action plans. Inspectors found the home was no longer in breach of Regulation 17.
“At this inspection we found there were robust measures in place to monitor quality, safety and experience of people within the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's risks, and how often will their care plan be updated?
- 02The report says the provider was reviewing people's commissioned care hours. What staffing levels and skills will be available for my relative?
- 03How would my relative communicate choices, discomfort or concerns, and which staff are trained to support their communication method?
- 04What individual activities and one-to-one support would be available if my relative did not want to join group activities?
- 05How are families being involved in decisions about the future development of the village-style service?
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 August 2021 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 2019
Pamela Barnett was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but gaps in risk records and quality checks.
Inspectors visited on 13 May 2019. They gave the home 48 hours' notice, spoke with staff and managers, checked five people's care records and medicines, and reviewed complaints, incidents, recruitment and quality checks. They also gathered feedback from four staff members and five relatives.
The home was rated Good for effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, supported personal choices, worked with health professionals and offered activities. Medicines were managed safely, emergency plans were up to date, and relatives said people were treated with dignity.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for safe and well-led care. Some risk assessments were out of date or lacked detail, and the home could not always show that checks had happened. Quality checks had not found these problems. This was a fall from Good at the previous inspection in October 2016.
Kind and familiar staff
Relatives and inspectors described caring relationships. Staff knew people's communication, preferences and individual needs well.
“All staff are very loving and know the residents very well and do their best to keep them comfortable and happy.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Medicine records checked by inspectors were complete, stock levels were correct and staff had regular training and competency checks.
“We carried out a random stock check in two flats, where the number of all medicines in stock was correct.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
People had detailed communication and support plans. They were supported to follow their own interests, take part in activities and go out into the community.
“People were supported to take part in social and recreational pursuits.” from the report
Involving families
Relatives were involved in care planning and could raise concerns through regular family meetings and other contact with the home.
“Relatives confirmed that they were involved in the development of people's care needs.” from the report
Risk records were not always current
seriousSome risk assessments were not reviewed regularly, lacked important detail or did not show that required checks had taken place. The report says this created a risk that people might not receive the right support.
“Some risk assessments were not reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they were kept up to date and reflected any changing needs.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe home's audits did not consistently identify gaps in risk assessments, care records and recorded actions. CQC said this was a breach of Regulation 17.
“The registered person had not established an effective system to enable them to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.” from the report
Recruitment records were incomplete
needs fixingThe home could not always show that it had obtained a full employment history for staff. CQC recommended that the service review its practice against current employment legislation.
“We recommend that the service consider current legislation related to the employment of people and act to update their practice accordingly.” from the report
- 01How often are each person's risk assessments reviewed, and how do you record that the required safety checks have happened?
- 02What action has been taken to make sure care plans and risk assessments are updated promptly after accidents or changes in need?
- 03How do you now check that your quality audits identify missing records and gaps in care plan information?
- 04Can you explain how full employment histories and other recruitment checks are recorded for every staff member?
- 05What progress has been made on the improvement plan sent to CQC after the Regulation 17 breach?
This was a planned announced inspection that assessed all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good at the October 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 July 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 Pamela Barnett
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Wokingham
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 £1,260 a week. 71 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“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.