CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Barbara's
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, effective safeguarding arrangements, enough staff and safe medicines systems. Infection prevention and control arrangements were also suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable managers, a positive culture and good links with other agencies. Managers were reviewing governance arrangements and learning from incidents.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and well supported, with some care records and governance work still being reviewed.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out over five dates. The inspector met a person living at the home, contacted a relative, spoke with managers and staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, enough staff, safe medicines practice and suitable safeguarding arrangements. Infection prevention arrangements were also found to be suitable.
Inspectors found a positive, person-centred culture. People were supported to make choices, maintain independence and pursue their goals. Managers were reviewing some capacity records and updating the governance system.
The overall Good rating includes ratings from the previous inspection for the three areas not inspected this time. The last inspection, published in June 2018, also rated the home Good.
Detailed risk planning
Risk assessments covered potential risks in detail, and staff used them to support people safely.
“The risk assessments were detailed, and staff ensured they effectively planned for all potential risks.” from the report
Enough skilled staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff during the day and night to meet people's needs and spend meaningful time with them.
“There were enough staff to safely care for people.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and assessed as competent. Medicines records were checked regularly for accuracy.
“Regular checks were carried out of people's medicines to ensure records were accurate.” from the report
Person-centred culture
Managers and staff focused on people's wishes, choices, independence and wellbeing.
“The registered managers promoted a positive, person-centred culture.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with other agencies and had links with the local community to improve people's opportunities and wellbeing.
“The service had good links with the local community and worked in partnership with other agencies to improve people's opportunities and wellbeing.” from the report
Capacity records under review
minorManagers were reviewing care records so that capacity assessments and best-interests documents were specific to each decision and accurate.
“The registered managers were in the process of reviewing people's care records to ensure all capacity assessments and 'best interests' documents were decision specific and accurate.” from the report
Governance system being updated
minorManagers said the existing governance system needed updating and were working on a more robust system.
“They were currently in the process of creating a more robust governance system, as they felt the existing one needed updating.” from the report
- 01Have all capacity assessments and best-interests records now been reviewed and corrected where needed?
- 02What changes are being made to the governance system, and when will they be complete?
- 03How are medicines records checked, and what happens if an error is found?
- 04How are staffing levels decided for day and night shifts?
- 05Can we see the previous comprehensive inspection report covering Caring, Effective and Responsive?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 July 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, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and person-centred support, with some records and staff review processes needing improvement.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 23 and 27 April 2018. The inspector spoke with all three people living at the home, relatives, staff, managers and other professionals. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home supported three people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable accommodation and good safeguarding arrangements. People were supported to make choices, stay healthy, use healthcare services, take part in activities and develop independence.
Care was described as kind and respectful. Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, relationships, communication and community activities. The home had a positive, person-centred culture and people and relatives gave positive feedback.
All five areas were rated Good. Some supervision and appraisal discussions were not recorded, and care and risk records were not always consistent or easy to use. Managers had identified these issues and were working on improvements. The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in February 2016.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and safe arrangements for administering and storing medicines. People could manage their own medicines when this was assessed as safe.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe and contingencies were in place to ensure that staff knew peoples' needs.” from the report
Respectful support
Staff treated people with dignity and supported privacy, communication and emotional wellbeing. Inspectors saw staff respond compassionately to people.
“We observed staff and people who used the service interacting and saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect” from the report
Choice and independence
People chose meals and activities and were supported to use public transport, volunteer, seek employment and take part in their community.
“People were supported to play an active role in their local community, which supported and empowered their independence.” from the report
Person-centred culture
Care plans described individual needs, wishes and choices. Feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals indicated a positive culture focused on each person.
“Comments from people, relatives, staff and visiting healthcare professionals indicated there was a positive, person centred culture within the service.” from the report
Suitable home
The home was homely, clean and adapted to meet people's needs. Personal items and photographs helped make it feel like people's home.
“The premises were homely and suitable for people's needs.” from the report
Staff supervision and appraisals
needs fixingSome supervision took place but was not recorded. Appraisals had been planned but had not yet happened, although managers had started a process to improve recording and monitoring.
“Some of the discussions that took place were documented; however, both staff and the registered managers told us that meetings took place more frequently but where not always recorded.” from the report
Inconsistent care and risk records
needs fixingCare plans and risk assessments were useful but varied in style. Some had been amended by hand several times, making information harder to find, and managers had started a review.
“The styles and content of files varied and some files were updated several times by hand, meaning information could be difficult to locate immediately.” from the report
Quality assurance updates
minorThe quality assurance system needed minor updates so it covered feedback from other agencies more fully and was more robust. The provider updated it during the inspection.
“This required minor updates to ensure it covered all aspects of feedback from other agencies and was robust.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure all care plans and risk assessments are consistent, up to date and easy for staff to find?
- 02Are staff supervision meetings and appraisals now completed and recorded for every member of staff?
- 03How do you check that people who manage some or all of their own medicines remain safe to do so?
- 04How do you use feedback from relatives, professionals and other agencies in your quality checks?
- 05How will you support my relative to make choices, build independence and take part in activities or work they value?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions, with the previous overall rating of Good from February 2016 reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 June 2018 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 St Barbara's
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 June 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.