CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Barn and Coach
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment and medicines managed safely. Guidance for some as-required medicines was missing but was put in place during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and choices. Staff training and supervision had improved, food and drink needs were supported, and the home worked with health and social care professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with respect and compassion. People were supported to make choices, remain independent and have their privacy and dignity respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and included people's preferences and communication needs. The home had systems for complaints and supported people's end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager was visible and approachable. Staff worked as a team, relatives were encouraged to share concerns, and audits and meetings were used to monitor and improve care.
What inspectors found, September 2019
The Barn and Coach was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with only minor issues about medicines guidance and tired décor.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 August 2019. One inspector spoke with four people, seven relatives, five staff members and one visiting professional. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, training information and management records.
People said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines systems, suitable care plans and good support with food, drink and healthcare. Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The other four ratings remained Good.
Kind, personal care
People and relatives described the home as friendly and caring. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and taking time to talk with them.
“The caring ethos of putting people first, was expressed by all staff we spoke with.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and saw that recruitment checks had been completed. People also benefited from continuity because the home did not use agency staff.
“We observed there were enough staff on duty to meet people's care needs.” from the report
Improved staff training
Staff training was up to date at this inspection. This addressed a shortfall found at the previous inspection.
“In the last inspection, some staff were found not to have completed some of the courses, however staff were now current in their training.” from the report
Good food and hydration support
People had meal choices and support suited to their dietary needs. Inspectors saw drinks being offered and found completed fluid records for people who needed monitoring.
“People were given a choice of meals and there was a menu on the board in the dining room.” from the report
Open management
The manager was present, worked alongside staff and encouraged people and relatives to raise concerns. Resident meetings and consultation time were also provided.
“The registered manager was visible at the service and worked with staff, leading by example.” from the report
Missing guidance for some medicines
needs fixingThere was no extra guidance explaining when some as-required medicines should be given. The manager acted immediately and put the guidance in place.
“However, there was no additional guidance information on when 'as required' medicines should be given” from the report
Worn communal décor
minorThe communal areas were clean and tidy, but inspectors said the décor looked worn and tired. This was not linked to a safety concern in the report.
“the décor was a little worn and tired.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the guidance for as-required medicines since the inspection?
- 02Has the communal décor been refreshed since inspectors described it as worn and tired?
- 03What has changed at the home since the 2019 inspection?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in care planning and reviews?
- 05How do you maintain staff continuity and ensure staff training remains up to date?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five rating areas, the premises and the care provided; Effective improved from Requires Improvement and the other ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 September 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found staff training and some care records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 December 2016. One inspector spoke with 10 people living there, three relatives, three care staff and the registered manager. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff support records, complaints information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for being safe, caring, responsive and well-led. People said they felt safe, staff were kind, medicines were managed safely, and visitors were welcome. People were involved in their care and could take part in activities they enjoyed.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being effective. Some staff training and updates were not current or properly evidenced. Some capacity, nutrition and care records also needed to be clearer or reviewed, although inspectors found no evidence that these issues had harmed people.
Safe care
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Risks were assessed and there were enough staff to meet people's needs safely.
“Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. There were systems in place to manage risk for the safety of people living and working in the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive interactions. Staff knew people's preferences and respected their privacy and dignity.
“All the interactions observed between staff and people were positive.” from the report
Personalised support
People's care was planned around their needs, preferences and routines. Staff responded appropriately to people's communication, mobility and sight needs.
“People received care and support that was individually planned and appropriate to their needs.” from the report
Activities and visitors
People had individual and group activities, including entertainment and church services. Visitors were welcomed.
“People were provided with suitable social opportunities both as individuals and as a group.” from the report
Visible management
The manager was available in the home and people felt able to share their views. Audits and action plans were used to monitor the service.
“The registered manager had a number of systems in place to monitor the standard of care people experienced.” from the report
Staff training records
needs fixingSome staff did not have evidence of current training or updates in important areas. This included practical moving and handling training for one staff member.
“Records showed and the registered manager confirmed that some aspects of staff training were not evidenced as in place or as recently updated for all staff.” from the report
Capacity assessments
needs fixingCapacity assessments had improved since the previous inspection, but some still needed to be reviewed. The manager also planned to ask the local authority to assess one person.
“We saw assessments of people's capacity in care records, an improvement from the last inspection, although these needed to be reviewed in some cases.” from the report
Nutrition records
minorNutrition records were not always easy to follow. Inspectors found no evidence that this had negatively affected people, and the manager said it would be addressed.
“These records were not always easy to follow, however we found no evidence that this had impacted on people in any negative way.” from the report
Medicines care planning
needs fixingOne person's care plan did not contain enough detail about one aspect of their medicines needs. The manager amended it during the inspection.
“We noted that a detailed care plan was not in place in relation to one aspect of a person's medicines needs.” from the report
- 01Which staff training and updates were missing at the inspection, and are they now complete?
- 02How do you check that practical moving and handling training remains current for every staff member?
- 03Have all capacity assessments been reviewed, and was the planned local authority assessment completed?
- 04How have you made nutrition records easier to follow?
- 05How do care plans record people's medicines needs in enough detail?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 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 The Barn and Coach
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 May 2014.
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 Thurrock
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 £1,210 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.