CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Barnabas Southwold
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough safely recruited staff, safe medicines systems and appropriate safeguarding arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission and staff worked with healthcare professionals. Staff received induction, training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, involved them in decisions and supported them to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records were personalised and reflected people's choices and needs. People were supported to follow their interests, maintain relationships and raise complaints or concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible leadership, an established workforce and an open culture. Audits, feedback and development plans were used to monitor quality and address issues.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 20 January 2020. One inspector observed care, spoke with six people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Inspectors found that staff understood people's risks, medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, and staffing levels and training were suitable.
Care was personalised and people were supported to make choices, enjoy activities and keep in touch with healthcare services. The home had a welcoming atmosphere and concerns were taken seriously.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Safe had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in August 2017. The other four ratings remained Good.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described warm, caring relationships with staff. Inspectors observed staff protecting people's privacy and dignity.
“People were consistently treated with kindness and compassion by the staff and had their privacy and dignity respected.” from the report
Safe systems
Staff understood safeguarding and risk management. Medicines, infection control, recruitment and incident reviews were all checked and found to be managed safely.
“Systems and processes were in place to make sure people received their medicines as they had been prescribed with clear records kept.” from the report
Personalised activities and choices
People were supported to follow their hobbies and choose whether to join activities. Staff also found ways to include people who preferred to spend time in their rooms.
“People were encouraged and enabled to pursue their hobbies, participate in activities of their choice through a varied activities programme.” from the report
Strong leadership and feedback
People, relatives and staff felt able to speak openly with managers. Feedback, audits and incidents were reviewed, with actions taken where needed.
“Quality assurance and risk management systems to independently identify issues or to improve the service were in place which supported effective governance and oversight arrangements.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and manage my relative's specific risks, such as falls, choking, pressure ulcers or nutrition?
- 02How would you record and review my relative's personal preferences, interests and choices in their care plan?
- 03What activities would be suitable for my relative, including if they choose not to join group activities?
- 04How would you involve our family and relevant healthcare professionals if my relative's health or needs changed?
- 05How can we give feedback or raise a concern, and how would you tell us what action was taken?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; Safe improved from Requires Improvement to Good, while the other four ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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.
What inspectors found, August 2017
St Barnabas Southwold was rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicines were not always managed safely and rated Safe as Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days, on 24 and 29 March 2017. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, a health professional, staff and the management team. They observed care and checked care, medicines, staffing, recruitment, complaints and quality records.
People generally felt safe and said staff responded to their needs. Inspectors found caring and respectful relationships, good support with food and health care, personalised care, activities and links with the local community. The home had an open management culture and systems for checking quality.
The main weakness was medicines recording. Staff did not always sign the medicines records after giving medicines, or record why they had not signed. This created a potential risk that medicines might not be given as prescribed, so the Safe rating was Requires Improvement. The other four areas were rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff supporting privacy, dignity and independence. People and relatives described staff as caring and respectful.
“The interactions between staff and people were caring, respectful, supported people's dignity and carried out in a respectful manner.” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
People received food suited to their needs and preferences. Staff sought professional advice when people lost weight or needed specialist support.
“People's nutritional needs were assessed and professional advice and support was obtained for people when needed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's preferences and needs, and staff knew how people liked to spend their time. Care was reviewed when needs changed.
“Staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of people's care needs.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found that people, relatives and staff could share their views. The management team used checks and feedback to make improvements.
“There was an open culture in the service.” from the report
Medicines records were incomplete
seriousStaff did not always sign medicines records after giving medicines or explain why they had not signed. This meant inspectors could not always be sure that medicines had been administered safely, especially inhalers.
“However, where we found 'gaps' in people's medicines administration records (MAR) identified that staff were not always signing the records after they had been administered, or if not, recording the reason why.” from the report
Mornings could be busy
minorOne person and a staff member said mornings could feel rushed, particularly when staff were helping with hoist transfers while also preparing breakfast. Management began considering extra catering support at breakfast time.
“A third person told us there were, "Definitely enough [staff]," but they had also noted at times in the morning that staff seemed, "A bit rushed.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every medicine administration record is signed immediately, including records for inhalers?
- 02How are the new medicine checks at each handover being monitored, and what happens when a gap is found?
- 03What changes have been made to staffing or breakfast arrangements since inspectors found that mornings could be busy and staff sometimes seemed rushed?
- 04How often are people's medicines and care needs reviewed with them and their relatives?
- 05What improvements have been made since the inspection, and can you show us the latest medicines audit results?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; it was the first inspection since the provider re-registered, so no previous rating was available for comparison. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 August 2017 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 Barnabas Southwold
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 2015.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.