CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 37 Barlby Road
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Support for Living Limited - 37 Barlby Road was inspected but not rated; infection controls were mostly in place, but some risk assessments needed improvement.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 April 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control, including visitors, PPE, testing, cleaning and plans for outbreaks.
Inspectors found clear arrangements for safe visits, PPE supplies, cleaning, staff training, testing and dealing with possible staff shortages. The home was clean and hygienic when inspectors visited.
Some checks were not strong enough. Risks after a hospital discharge, risks linked to one staff member not wearing a mask, and risks affecting staff with increased medical vulnerability had not been fully assessed. The registered manager took immediate action on some points, and inspectors recommended a review of risk assessments.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not provide a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating for the home, and it does not assess the other four CQC questions.
Safe visits
The home had changed its visitors' arrangements as guidance and risks changed. Inspectors found a clear process for managing visits safely.
“There was a clear process in place to ensure all visits to the service were managed safely.” from the report
Clean environment
Staff used cleaning schedules, and inspectors found the home clean and hygienic.
“Staff followed cleaning schedules to ensure levels of cleanliness were maintained and the service was clean and hygienic when we visited.” from the report
Testing and preparedness
The home was taking part in whole-service testing and had a plan for acute staff shortages.
“The service was taking part in 'whole service' testing in line with current government guidance to help protect all people using the service and staff.” from the report
Infection control training
Staff had infection prevention and control training and enhanced COVID-19 training. PPE supplies were maintained.
“Staff received Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) training and enhanced COVID-19 training.” from the report
Hospital discharge risk
needs fixingThe risks of bringing an infection into the home after one person's hospital discharge had not been properly assessed. A risk assessment was completed after inspectors raised this.
“One person had been admitted to hospital, however, the provider had not adequately assessed the risks of the person bringing an infection into the service after discharge from hospital.” from the report
Mask exemption risk
needs fixingThe risks created by one staff member being medically exempt from wearing a mask had not been properly assessed. The home took immediate action to reduce the risks.
“The provider had not adequately assessed the risks this posed to others or put in measures to mitigate these.” from the report
Incomplete staff risk assessments
needs fixingThe home had discussed medical vulnerability with staff but had not formally assessed all relevant risks, including age and ethnicity. Inspectors recommended reviewing these assessments.
“However, they did not conduct formal risk assessments for these or considered other risk factors such as age and ethnicity.” from the report
- 01What risk assessment is now completed when someone returns from hospital, and how are infection risks managed?
- 02What arrangements are in place when a staff member is medically exempt from wearing a face mask?
- 03Have formal risk assessments now been completed for staff with medical vulnerabilities?
- 04How does the home consider age and ethnicity, as well as medical conditions, in infection control risk assessments?
- 05When was the infection prevention and control policy last reviewed and updated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe only; the home was not rated and the other four questions were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 April 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, January 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and well-led care, but the effective rating was Requires Improvement because food choices and activities were not always good enough.
This was a comprehensive inspection carried out on 30 October 2017. It was announced 48 hours beforehand. The inspector observed care, spoke with the manager and two support staff, and checked care records, staff files and management records. People were not able to describe their experiences verbally.
The home supported four adults with complex learning disabilities and physical disabilities. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, up-to-date risk assessments and suitable health care support. Staff treated people with kindness, respected their privacy and helped them to be independent.
The main weaknesses were food and activities. Inspectors found that people's cultural food preferences were recorded but were not always provided. They also found that activities were not always creative, meaningful or consistent. Two recommendations were made, but no breaches of regulations were recorded.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the July 2016 inspection to Good. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Requires Improvement.
Individual risk planning
Risks were assessed for each person and staff had clear instructions on how to reduce them. Staff knew people's needs and how to keep them safe.
“Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual and were up to date and being reviewed in line with the provider's policies and procedures.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff supporting people calmly and compassionately. Staff respected privacy and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.
“We saw people being supported by confident and compassionate staff members who were aware of the need to obtain people's consent before supporting people where this was possible.” from the report
Good health support
People were supported to attend health appointments and had access to a range of health professionals when needed.
“Appointment logs and records of correspondence showed that people using the service were seen by speech and language therapists, dietitians, opticians, dentists and GPs when needed” from the report
Strong management checks
The home used audits and quality checks covering care records, medicines, health and safety and the environment.
“All of these were completed diligently and provided a good overview of how the service was performing, where improvements were required and what action was needed.” from the report
Food choices
needs fixingInspectors found low food stocks and little evidence that recorded cultural preferences were being provided. One person's food cupboard was empty.
“One person's cupboard was completely empty and the others contained just one or two items.” from the report
Activities and quality of life
needs fixingSome people took part in outings and activities, but inspectors could not be assured that meaningful activities were planned and provided consistently for everyone.
“We recommend the provider takes timely action in conjunction with the appropriate agencies, organisations, health and social care professionals (where this may be required) to develop a more creative and consistent approach to maximising people's quality of life through the introduction of meaningful and stimulating activities.” from the report
- 01What varied meals and snacks are now available for each person, including meals that reflect their cultural preferences?
- 02How do you find out what a person enjoys eating if they cannot tell staff verbally?
- 03What meaningful and stimulating activities are planned for each person, and how do you check that they take part regularly?
- 04What changes were made after the two recommendations about meal planning and activities?
- 05How are families, advocates and health professionals involved in reviewing care and making decisions for people who cannot communicate verbally?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with observations, discussions and checks of care, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 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 37 Barlby Road
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 2012.
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 Kensington and Chelsea
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 £980 to £1,270 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
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.