CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Barnfield
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and managed, medicines were handled safely, and infection control arrangements were in place. There were enough staff to keep people safe during the inspection, although vacancies created extra pressure on staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction, training and support. People's health, nutrition, communication and legal rights were considered, and staff worked with health professionals when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well, helped them express their needs and choices, and treated them with dignity and respect. People were supported to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and staff responded to people's changing moods, communication needs and interests. People were supported to take part in activities and maintain relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had positive leadership, regular checks and a development plan. Staff and relatives spoke positively about the service, although some staff said the pressures caused by vacancies were not always recognised.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but staff vacancies were putting extra pressure on the team.
The inspection took place on 22 September 2021. Inspectors visited the home, met all four people living there, reviewed care and medicines records, and spoke with relatives, health professionals, the manager and support staff. They also checked infection prevention arrangements.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks and medicines were managed appropriately, staff understood people's needs, and people were supported with dignity, choice and independence.
The home supported people with learning and physical disabilities. Care plans were personalised, staff helped people communicate and take part in activities, and the service worked with families and health professionals. The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 3 May 2019.
Risk management
The home identified risks and recorded the support people needed to reduce them. Staff monitored risks during daily activities and supported positive risk taking.
“People's care records contained risk assessments which identified risks and what support was needed to reduce and manage those risks.” from the report
Personalised communication
Staff took time to understand how people communicated, including through behaviour and sensory cues. This helped them recognise people's needs and preferences.
“Staff took time to know people and supported them to communicate their needs.” from the report
Dignity and choice
People were involved in decisions, supported to make choices and treated with respect. Staff promoted privacy and independence in the home and community.
“The care provided was person-centred and promoted people's dignity, privacy and upheld their human rights.” from the report
Clean and suitable home
Inspectors found infection control arrangements in place. The home was clean and furniture was maintained so it could be cleaned effectively.
“The service was clean, and furniture was in a good state of repair which meant it could be cleaned effectively.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager and provider carried out audits and checks, including medicines audits. The service also had a plan for further improvement.
“The service had a 'development plan' which was used to improve the quality of care provided within the service.” from the report
Staff vacancies
needs fixingThere were enough staff to meet people's needs at the inspection, but vacancies meant some shifts had only two staff and some staff regularly worked extra hours. This created pressure for the staff team.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe, although staff vacancies meant some staff were regularly working extra hours to maintain safe staffing levels.” from the report
Online training pace
minorSome staff said that parts of the online training were delivered too quickly. The manager said this would be raised with the provider.
“We received some feedback about the fast pace of some on-line training.” from the report
- 01How many staff are usually on duty, and how are shifts covered while vacancies remain?
- 02How often are staff working extra hours, and what steps are being taken to recruit more staff?
- 03How will the service make sure online training is delivered at a pace staff can understand?
- 04How will my relative's communication tools and personal care preferences be recorded and followed?
- 05How are activities and trips in the community planned around each person's choices and abilities?
This inspection covered all five key questions and included infection prevention and control, but inspectors reviewed one person's care records and four people's medicines records rather than every record. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 October 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, May 2019
People in Action - Barnfield was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records needing improvement.
The inspection took place on 11 April 2019 and was announced. One inspector spoke with managers and three care staff, reviewed care, medicines and management records, and checked information received about the home. They could not speak directly with residents because of their limited verbal communication, so they also spoke with two relatives.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines administration, suitable training, respectful care and strong support for residents to make choices and develop independence.
The report also identified areas to improve. Care plans needed less duplication and better detail about communication. Records for some medicines and fluid intake needed strengthening. Not everyone's end of life wishes had been recorded. The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection in October 2016.
Safe staffing
There were enough staff to meet residents' needs, including supporting outings, interests and life skills. The use of agency staff had reduced since the previous inspection.
“There were enough staff to support people to go out, pursue their interests or to help them improve their life skills.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew residents well, understood their communication styles and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“Through our visit, we saw staff apply these skills and staff had time just to sit, talk and be with people.” from the report
Personalised choices
Residents were supported to make daily choices using their own forms of communication, including gestures, eye movements and picture cards.
“Staff said even though people could not express themselves vocally, they could through eye movement or body language.” from the report
Support to build independence
Staff helped residents develop daily living skills and, in some cases, move towards services offering less support.
“Through the setting of goals and objectives, people's daily life skills and experiences were increased” from the report
Positive management
Managers used audits, action plans and staff discussions to monitor care and make improvements. Staff said communication and teamwork had improved.
“Quality assurance audits appropriate for the size of the service were completed, with provider oversight.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingCare plans were personalised but sometimes duplicated information or did not match staff knowledge. Some records did not explain residents' communication methods in enough detail.
“Care plans were personalised, but needed improvements to reduce duplication and to make sure they corresponded with staff's knowledge about each person.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingMedicines were given safely, but records for medicines given when needed and topical creams needed improvement.
“Improvements were needed to 'as and when' medicine protocols and introducing topical cream charts to demonstrate people received these medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Fluid monitoring
needs fixingRecords did not always show clearly whether people had reached their individual hydration targets.
“Improvements were needed with the recording of people's fluid intake as it was not always clear if people had reached their target hydration goal.” from the report
End of life wishes
needs fixingNot all residents had their wishes and preferences for the final stages of life recorded because these discussions had not taken place.
“Not everyone's wishes and preferences in the final stages of their life was recorded as those conversations had not taken place.” from the report
- 01How have you updated care plans so they contain less duplication and clearly describe each person's communication methods?
- 02What changes have you made to records for 'as and when' medicines and topical creams?
- 03How do you now check and record whether each person has reached their hydration target?
- 04Have you discussed and recorded each resident's end of life wishes and preferences?
- 05What other communication techniques have you considered since the inspection to help residents make informed choices?
This was a planned, announced inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions; the report says the overall Good rating had remained unchanged since the inspection published on 11 October 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 May 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 Barnfield
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 April 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 Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.