Archived: Barton Court

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The staff that we spoke to understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure that people were safe. During our inspection we saw that staff delivered the care outlined in people's care plans. For example we observed that staff ensured people were safe from falls because they encouraged people to use their walking aids.

Procedures for dealing with emergencies were in place and staff were able to describe these to us. Staff had access to support and advice at all times from a senior member of staff.

The registered manager ensured that staff underwent checks before starting work at the home. For example they checked a person's character by carrying out Disclosure and Barring Service checks. (DBS). This was formally known as a criminal records check.

Staff were trained in safeguarding people from abuse and they understood their responsibilities to protect vulnerable people.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We saw that people's rights were protected because the manager understood how to support people to make decisions in their best interest.

There were systems in place for making regular checks on the safety of the premises and for ensuring that the staff had the required skills and knowledge to care for people in a safe way.

Is the service effective?

People had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. We saw that people had been fully involved in the assessment of their health and care needs and had contributed to developing their care plan. People's care plans were reviewed regularly to check they were still effective. During our inspection we saw staff delivering the care outlined in people's plans. People who used the service talked positively about the care they had received. One person said 'Staff are wonderful, they listen to me'. Another person said 'Staff treat me with respect'. People told us they remained happy at the service and were comfortable and they had everything they needed.

Is the service caring?

We found that people were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained. People appeared relaxed and comfortable with the staff that supported them. We observed that people had a positive relationship with staff. Staff took time to chat with people about day to day matters. People told us that the staff were caring, one person said 'I get on really well with the staff, they are caring.' Another person said 'We love the staff here; they are caring and look after me well'. A relative said 'I visit most days, the care is very good and people are well looked after.' Another relative said 'The staff are approachable, they keep me informed and I am aware there is a care plan'.

Is the service responsive?

The service reviewed people's care plans regularly. There was a nominated person in charge of the service with the required training and authority to manage how the service was delivered. The registered manager or their deputies were available via telephone for further advice when needed.

We found that the manager asked people about what they experienced from the care and treatment they had received. The registered manager had consulted people who used the service, listened to their comments and acted on them.

Is the service well-led?

The provider continually monitored areas of risk in the service and made regular checks on quality. There was evidence that the provider learnt from incidents that occurred to prevent them from occurring again.

The manager ensured that daily checks of the quality and safety of the service were carried out. Regular reviews of people's care plans took place which ensured their needs were being met.

Staff were trained, appraised and supervised to ensure they could care for people effectively.

Overall we found that Barton Court had achieved compliance although we have identified some areas that the provider may find useful to note.

Relatives we spoke with were complimentary of staff. They said that staff were friendly and approachable. One person said, 'There is always a lovely atmosphere when we visit'.

We observed that staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff were polite and interacted well with people. Staff understood the needs of the people who lived in the home and supported them in line with the guidance in their care plans.

Staff understood the importance about asking people for their consent before any care and treatment was given.

People were provided with appropriate care and support that met their needs and promoted their wellbeing.

We observed that people had positive experiences at mealtimes and there was a range of suitable and nutritional meal options available for people to choose from.

There were appropriate recruitment procedures in place. Staff had received induction and training appropriate to their role.

Records were generally well maintained.

The visitor spoke positively about the care provided. They told us that they felt confident in leaving their relative in the care of the staff in the home. They said "There has been a big improvement in their general health and that's because of the girls here". They told us that staff always treated their relative with dignity and respect and that they were also kept up to date with information about their care needs.

Staff told us that they felt well supported by the interim manager and that they could ask for advice if they needed it. They told us that they read the care plans and felt that they gave them good information.

Our observations showed that the care staff understood the needs of the people who lived in the home and they provided care and support in line with their care plans.

We saw that mealtimes were not well organised as it took a long time to get everybody into the dining area and this impacted on people who needed assistance with their meals. We also found that not all risk assessments fully identified how to reduce a risk and that training was not fully up to date.