• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Barton Park Nursing Home

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

15-17 Oxford Road, Birkdale, Southport, Merseyside, PR8 2JR (01704) 566964

Provided and run by:
Choiceclassic Limited

All Inspections

5 July 2018

During a routine inspection

This inspection of Barton Park Nursing home took place on 5 and 6 July 2018. We completed a further visit at the home on 25 July 2018 to check recent concerns which had been brought to our attention, however we found that these concerns were being addressed appropriately, however we have asked for information from the manager around timescales for completion.

The inspection was unannounced, and was undertaken both due to concerns being raised to us by the local authority.

We completed a focused inspection in April 2018, as we wanted to ensure the home was being managed appropriately, and we had been made aware of a change to the registered manager.

During this inspection in April 2018 we looked at the Safe and Well-led domains and found a breach in relation to the fire doors. We escalated our findings to the Merseyside Fire and Rescue service.

We received information from the registered manager after our inspection in April 2018 ended to confirm that the concerns we found in relation to fire doors had been rectified.

However, we saw during this inspection, that the service was still in breach of regulations in relation to this, and we escalated our findings from this inspection in relation to the fire safety of the home to Merseyside Fire and Rescue service. Merseyside Fire and Rescue service conducted their own inspection of the premises and found concerns relating to some of the fire safety of Barton Park. We have been updated with regards to this.

CQC have closely monitored the home since the since a criminal investigation began in relation to directors of the registered provider, Choiceclassic Ltd. We have been unable to report on this aspect of the inspection under the Well-Led domain due to reporting restrictions being in place. Following this verdict, CQC has followed their own regulatory processes to ensure the safe running of the home. This included imposing conditions on the registered provider’s registration to prevent the directors from entering Barton Park or engaging in the regulated activity of the home. Following this inspection we have imposed a further condition that restricts the service from admitting any new service users given the concerns that we found.

Barton Park is located in Birkdale and is registered to provide nursing care and accommodation for up to 60 people. At the time of our inspection there were 14 people living at the home. This was because the local authority commissioning team had served 28 days’ notice to terminate their contract with the registered provider, Choiceclassic Ltd in light of the guilty verdict of one their directors. On the last day of the inspection only six people lived at Barton Park.

Barton Park is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

During day one of our inspection, there was a registered manager in post. However, by day two of our inspection the registered manager had been changed, and the deputy manager was on leave, which left a new manager who had started in post the same day as the overall decision maker of the home.

A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We were concerned about this, as there was also no Nominated Individual (person responsible) in post to provide oversight and support with decision making in light of the restrictions on the registration of the directors of Choiceclassic Ltd. The new manager had only taken up post that day, and was not well informed as to the situation at Barton Park with regards the local authority issuing notice on their contract with Choiceclassic Ltd. Subsequently, this meant that people who received local authority funded care provision were being assessed for a place in other nursing homes. Additionally, the new manager had no induction or shadowing opportunity. Staff were also unaware of the changes to the management structure and staff members told us they were unsure what was happening or who they should go to.

Audits had not been completed when required. There was a dignity audit which was due to be completed quarterly, which meant it was due at the end of April 2018. This had not been completed. We saw that medication audits had not been completed since March 2018, therefore the service was unable to demonstrate a good oversight in relation to checking service provision. Governance systems in place also did not pick up on the concerns we found throughout our inspection. Additionally, the breach of regulation in relation to fire safety at the last inspection had not been adequately addressed, which demonstrated that lessons had not been learned from previous shortfalls and addressed or followed up appropriately.

The home was not adequately staffed which we saw during the second day of our inspection. The operation decision to change the registered manager at short notice meant that the nursing provision for the home over the weekend was not covered. This was because the previous registered manager had placed themselves on these shifts. We were concerned about this. Staffing rotas could not be located, and the new manager and HR manager were not sure what shifts needed to be covered. Due to the potential impact this could have for people living at the home, we shared our concerns with the local authority, and requested to be updated throughout the duration of our inspection until the shifts were covered. The new manger covered the shifts with a registered nurse who worked at the home and kept us updated of this.

There were other staffing concerns which we saw during our inspection in relation to supervision and appraisal. There was no documented evidence to show that staff had been engaging in regular supervisions. Three staff supervisions had taken place in 2018, however the rest of the supervisions were from 2017, and we could not determine which staff had been supervised and which hadn’t. We also saw that most staff had not had an appraisal.

We found that medication was not always managed safely. This was because medications requiring cold storage were kept in a fridge, and the temperature had not been taken since April 2018. If medication is not stored within the correct temperature range its ability to work effectively can be compromised

Additionally, the process for administering Controlled Drugs (CDs) was unsafe and not in line with best practice. We have shared some guidance with the new manager around this to ensure they took action and put adequate safeguards in place.

People’s records were disorganised and often contained confusing information. Some care plans were not always clear, and risk assessments for some people had not been reviewed regularly. There were also gaps in the recording of information for some people, such as cream charts and pressure relief charts.

We were made aware by the local authority that some people’s next of kin was still named as the director who had just been found guilty and sentenced for acts of fraud against people who had lived at Barton Park. Some of the financial information for people had not been made readily available for assessment by social workers and advocates when requested. The local authority shared this information with Merseyside police. This meant that people had not been safeguarded appropriately from potential acts of abuse.

The service was not always working in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This was because information around people’s decision-making abilities was not always clear. Additionally, some people’s capacity had not been assessed as part of their admission to the home. One person’s Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) authorisation had expired last year, and had not been reapplied for, nor had their capacity been reassessed.

We looked at the process in place to record and respond to complaints. There was no record of any complaints being received at Barton Park. However, one visiting relative told us they had made a complaint some weeks ago in writing and not had a response. We followed this up and saw there was no record of this complaint. Therefore, we could not be sure whether any other complaints had been received and not acted upon.

Care plans were basic in their presentation; however, they did have details with regards to people’s likes, dislikes and routines. Due to the care records being disorganised, it was difficult to determine from the records if people were in receipt of person centred care. Person centred means care which is based around the needs of the person and not the service. Our observations showed that staff knew people well, and they could clearly explain their routines to us. However, some recording of information was lacking in detail for some people and detailed for others, which did not demonstrate a consistent approach to record keeping.

Staff recruitment records showed that most checks had been undertaken as needed. This included references, identification, and a Disclosure and Barring Service checks. We did see some recruitment files did not contain medical questionnaires or interview notes, whereas others did. This meant that recruitment records did not contain consistent information. We raised this at the time of our inspection and have made a recommendation about this.

We saw on day two of our inspection that there was a singing activity organised which people enjoyed. However, when we asked about other activities people could not remember what they had done, and one person said, “Not much happens in the home.” On day o

26 April 2018

During an inspection looking at part of the service

In February 2016 we formally notified the provider of our decision under Section 31 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to impose restrictive conditions on their registration. This was following criminal charges that were brought by Merseyside Police against all of the directors of Choicelassic Ltd and others who had worked at the service. We will report on this when the current proceedings have been concluded.

We undertook an unannounced focused inspection of Barton Park on 26 April 2018. We inspected the service against two of the five questions we ask about services: is the service well led, and is the service safe? This is because there had been in change in registered manager in the last 12 months and we wanted to ensure the home was sustaining its last rating of 'good'.

The Nominated Individual (person responsible) had not been in post for a period of over two years. The Commission had not received any statutory notification as legally required that advised who was performing in this capacity in their absence.

No risks, concerns or significant improvement were identified in the remaining Key Questions through our ongoing monitoring or during our inspection activity so we did not inspect them. The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for these Key Questions were included in calculating the overall rating in this inspection. Given the circumstances of the on-going criminal case and the concerns found on this inspection we are unable to rate the service as good overall following this inspection.

Barton Park is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Barton Park accommodates up to 60 people in one adapted building. The nursing home is accommodated in an extended detached building with both apartments and single bedrooms available. At the time of our inspection there were 24 people living at the home.

A registered manager was in post who had recently registered with the Care Quality Commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We observed that some of the automatic fire door closures did not work as they should. This meant that people would not be safe in the event of a fire. We advised the registered manager of our concerns during inspection and requested that immediate action was taken to rectify this. Evidence was later provided to demonstrate the required improvements had been made to ensure people were safe from the risks associated with fire.

There were governance systems in place and checks were being undertaken in various areas of service provision. However, the checks failed to highlight the concerns we found with regards to the fire door closures.

People told us they felt safe living at the home. We observed there were enough staff to provide safe, effective care.

Medication was safely managed, stored and administered. People received their medications on time.

Staff were recruited and selected to work at the home following a safe recruitment procedure. The registered manager retained comprehensive records of each staff member, and had undertaken checks on their character and suitability to work at the home.

The home was clean and tidy. There was provision for personal protective equipment stationed around the home, and staff were trained in infection control procedures. Equipment was in good working order.

Staff were able to describe the process they would follow to ensure that people were protected from harm and abuse. All staff had completed safeguarding training. There was information around the home which described what people should do if they felt they needed to report a concern.

Feedback from Staff and people who lived at the home was regularly gathered and analysed. All of the staff we spoke with said that they liked working at the home.

The service had the ratings displayed in the home from the last inspection as legally required.

29 March 2017

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection of Barton Park was conducted on 29 March 2017.

Barton Park Nursing Home is a care home in the Birkdale area of Southport. The service offers accommodation, support and nursing care for up to 60 older people. The nursing home is accommodated in an extended detached building with both apartments and single bedrooms available. Car parking is available at the front of the building and there are gardens to the front and rear of the building. At the time of our inspection there were 23 people living at the home.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The home was previously inspected in March 2016, and was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ overall. We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in relation to safe care and treatment, medication management, the environment, person centred care and governance. Following the inspection, the registered manager sent us an action plan detailing what actions they were going to take to address these concerns, and we checked this as part of this inspection. We found during this inspection that appropriate action had been taken and the breaches of regulation were now met.

During our last inspection in March 2016, we found the service was in breach of regulations related to medication. This was because medications were not always being administered appropriately and in line with good practice. The registered manager sent us an action plan detailing what action they were going to take and we checked this as part of this inspection. We found that the procedure for managing medicines had improved. Regular checks, training, and auditing were being completed with regards to medication, and medication was being stored in line with good practice. The provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

During our last inspection in March 2016 we found the service was in breach of regulations relating to safe care and treatment. This was because some risk assessments were not completed accurately for people who required them. The registered manager sent us an action plan following this inspection detailing what action they were going to take and we checked this as part of this inspection. We saw that all risk assessments were fully completed and reviewed appropriately. In addition, the risk assessments we saw for people contained a high level of detail regarding

both their clinical needs and emotional well-being. The provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

During our last inspection in March 2016, we found the service in breach of regulations relating to the improper use of equipment. This was because we observed fire doors were being wedged open in various areas of the home which could potentially compromise the safety of the people living there. The registered manager sent us an action plan following this inspection detailing what action they were going to take, and we checked this during this inspection. We saw during this inspection, that all fire doors had been fitted with automatic closures which ensured they could be opened safely and would close automatically. The provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

During our last inspection in March 2016, we found the service was in breach of regulations relating to person centred care and treatment. This was because people were not getting care which was right for them, for example, were people required thickener for fluids, there was no specific guidance for staff to follow to ensure people received their drinks thickened to the correct consistency. Following this inspection, the registered manager sent us an action plan detailing what action they were going to take and we checked this during this inspection. We saw during this inspection, that care plans had been re-written to include important information regarding people’s drinks and other personalised information which was important to people had been included in their care plans. The provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

During our last inspection in March 2016, we found the service was in breach of regulations relating to the governance of the home. This was because the shortfalls we had identified in relation to care planning and risk assessments had not been identified during regular internal checks and auditing. The registered manager sent us an action plan following this inspection and we checked this as part of this inspection. We found that the service had made improvements to their auditing system which was robust and we saw that any errors during the auditing process had been identified and action plans had been drawn up and checked.

Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the home. Staff were clearly able to explain what steps they would take to ensure actual or potential harm or abuse was reported.

Staff were recruited safely and only offered positions in the home once all checks had been completed and references received. We found that there were adequate numbers of staff on duty.

Incidents and accidents were well documented and analysed monthly for any emerging patterns or trends.

Staff were trained in all subjects relevant to their role and in line with the providers training and induction guidelines. Staff received regular supervision and annual appraisal.

The manager and the staff had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and their roles and responsibilities linked to this. Staff support was available to assist people to make key decisions regarding their care. We heard staff seeking out consent from people throughout our inspection. DoLS were appropriately applied for.

People said they liked the food; dietary preferences were catered for and people had choice and control over what appeared on the menu.

Staff spoke to people using kind and reassuring language. People were complimentary about the staff and said they felt the staff treated them with respect.

There was a process in place to manage and respond to complaints.

People’s feedback and staffs feedback was regularly gathered and analysed. All of the staff we spoke with said that they liked working at the home.

The registered manager had the ratings displayed in the home from the last inspection.

2 February 2016

During a routine inspection

A comprehensive inspection took place on 2 & 26 February 2016 and 16 &17 March 2016. The inspection was unannounced. A previous inspection under our previous methodology was conducted on 3 July 2014 and the service was compliant in two of the five outcome areas. A follow up inspection was undertaken on 6 January 2015 and the home was judged as compliant in those areas.

Barton Park Nursing Home is a care home in the Birkdale area of Southport. The service offers accommodation, support and nursing care for up to 60 older people. The nursing home is accommodated in an extended detached building with both apartments and single bedrooms available. Car parking is available at the front of the building and there are gardens to the front and rear of the building.

A manager was in post and was in the process of registering with the commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The manager now registering with the commission had only been in post at Barton Park for two days prior to our inspection taking place. In February 2016 we formally notified the provider of our decision under Section 31 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to impose restrictive conditions on their registration. The notice precluded two directors and the former registered manager from physically entering Barton Park Nursing Home, having contact with the people who used the service and the carrying on the regulated activities. We had taken this action because we believed people may be exposed to the risk of harm unless we did so.

At the time of our inspection all previous managers and directors of Barton Park were subject to bail conditions and conditions imposed by the commission which prevented them from entering the premises. This was following police involvement in which arrests were made. They are awaiting trial by the crown prosecution.

People living at the home were not always protected against the risks associated with the unsafe management and administration of medications.

We saw there were risk assessments in place with regards to people’s moving and handling needs and medication needs. However other risks assessments to help keep people safe from harm, such as choking, were not in place.

Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s needs, however some people were at risk of not receiving care as they needed it, as some aspects of their care was not planned effectively.

Audits were in place to assure the service provision however they were not always effective. The current auditing system had failed to highlight the concerns we picked up on during our inspection. There was a process in place for gathering feedback from stakeholders and family members. This included the use of satisfactions surveys though we were advised these had not been distributed since February 2014.

We observed that fire doors were wedged open, which presented a risk to people living at the home and others in the event of a fire. The manager took action on this as soon we highlighted the risk posed to people.

Staff were recruited appropriately and the relevant checks were undertaken before they started work to ensure they were fit to work with vulnerable people.

.

Most of the staff we spoke with were aware of abuse and what constituted as a safeguarding and how they would report this. One person was not sure of their role; this was discussed during the inspection process and we were provided with assurance that this would be addressed.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Barton Park and we received positive comments about the home.

People living at the home and their relatives told us there was sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs, and we saw evidence of this during our inspection. Rotas evidenced staffing numbers had been developed using a tool based on people’s dependencies. We did observe staff appeared to be rushed and under pressure on our first day of inspection due to unexpected staff sickness; on the second day of our inspection was very calm and relaxed.

Staff were trained, and underwent regular supervision and appraisal. Induction took place for new staff, as well as shadowing opportunities.

The manager and the staff had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and their roles and responsibilities linked to this. We were not always able to tell by looking at people’s records how decisions had been accessed if the decisions had been made in the person’s best interests. Staff support was available to assist people to make key decisions regarding their care. We heard staff seeking out consent from people throughout our inspection.

The home had equipment such as hoists and lifts to meet people’s needs and promote their independence. We saw these had been serviced regularly to ensure the home was complying with safety regulations.

Everyone told us the staff were caring and we saw evidence during our inspection that the staff cared about the people they supported. Staff we spoke with gave us examples of how they protected people’s privacy and dignity when providing personal care..

Food was fresh and home cooked. Everyone we spoke with told us that they enjoyed the food. We sampled the food and found it tasted very nice.

There was a procedure in place for managing complaints and no complaints had been made in the last twelve months. People we spoke with confirmed they knew who to speak with if they wished to complain.

Systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service were not always effective. This included audits of people’s care plans and feedback systems

We had conducted previous visits to the home as we were concerned regarding the management structure. We found during this inspection that the manager, who was new in post, was open and transparent throughout our inspection and most people and staff knew of the manager, despite being in post for two days prior to our inspection.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of this report

6 January 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited Barton Park Nursing home to review our findings of noncompliance in three outcomes at our inspection in July 2014. The inspection team who carried out this inspection consisted of two adult social care inspectors. The inspection was unannounced.

We considered all the evidence we gathered under the outcome we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

As part of this inspection we spoke with six people who use the service, the registered manager and the general manager. We looked at eight people's personal care records and audits completed for care records and medication.

Below is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

We last inspected Barton Park Nursing home in July 2014. At that time we found that care and treatment was not planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare because appropriate information was not consistently recorded. We found that documents relating to the care and treatment of people were not completed in sufficient detail to give guidance to staff and record the treatment given by staff at the home. We also found the care plan audits completed by the service did not identify the shortfalls regarding the information recorded about people's care needs to ensure staff supported people in accordance with individual need.

Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan which detailed how the service was to meet the requirements. On this inspection we checked to see whether improvements had been made.

We found the care records had been amended since our last inspection to include more person centred support. A mental capacity assessment process had been changed to include the introduction of dementia care plans. The home was now operating an improved audit process.

Is the service effective?

Staff had received additional training for recording and communication. The registered manager and general manager had introduced communication aids for people who needed them to help express their wishes and feelings.

Since our last inspection the registered manager had made six applications for a Deprivation of Liberty safeguards assessment [DoLS]. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They aim to make sure that people in care homes are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom.

The safeguards ensure that a care home only deprives someone of their liberty in a safe and correct way, and that this is only done when it is in the best interests of the person and there is no other way to look after them.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with six people who lived at the home whilst they were waiting for their lunch. We discussed their wellbeing, social activities provided and the lunch time meal. They told us they were happy with the existing arrangements in the home. They all commented on the good choice of food that was provided.

Is the service responsive?

Activities were provided on a daily basis by an activities coordinator. We saw activities were recorded and photographs taken of each event. Activities that took place included relaxation and pamper days, exercises, quizzes, bingo, art and crafts, card and board games. Musical entertainers visited the home regularly.

Is the service well led?

The service was now being managed in a way that aimed to protect people's health, safety and welfare. The registered manager and general manager had taken action to improve the service through providing a more robust audit system and supporting staff to improve their recording in care records.

3 July 2014

During a routine inspection

Two adult social care inspectors carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer our five key questions:

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

As part of this inspection we spoke with the four people who used the service, one visitor, the Registered Manager, two care staff and the cook. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the home which included, four care plans, daily care records, and four staff recruitment files.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected. They told us they felt safe.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. The Registered Manager showed an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which is the legislative framework for the decision making process regarding people who may lack mental capacity. They were able to talk about a recent situation when an application had been considered. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

We looked at the recruitment of new staff. Staff personnel records contained all the information required by the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This meant the provider demonstrated that the staff employed to work at the home were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support the people living in the home.

People's health and care needs were assessed with appropriate referrals being made to external professionals who were able to assess and support the care of people in the home. We looked at the care of four people in depth. We found that not all the care plans, risk assessments and action plans reflected their current needs and recorded the support people required or the treatment given to people.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to keeping accurate records and appropriate information in relation to the care and treatment provided to each person living in the home.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. One person told us, "I like living here. The staff are so cheerful and helpful, nothing is too much trouble for them. If I didn't like it I wouldn't stay.'

Visitors confirmed that they were able to see people at any time as visiting times were flexible. They said that staff kept them informed and they were therefore always up to date with any changes to people's care.

Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. However, risk assessments and care plans we saw did not clearly show how these identified needs were to be met. Care plans were therefore not able to support staff consistently to meet people's needs.

People told us they were satisfied with the food and menus. Arrangements were in place to monitor people's views of the meals served.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, 'The staff are so cheerful and helpful, nothing is too much trouble for them', 'If I didn't like it I wouldn't stay', 'I am never short of anything; the staff get you what you want' and 'Very good care.' A relative said, 'I visit my relative regularly and the staff are lovely to them. I have no concerns about the care here.'

Is the service responsive?

Some of the records we looked at did not show people's preferences, interests and preferred routines. Other records we looked at were not as detailed as they could be. However people we spoke with told us staff provided support in accordance with their wishes.

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We looked at how these complaints had been dealt with, and found that the responses had been open, thorough, and timely. People were therefore assured that complaints were investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

There was a Registered Manager in post at the time of our inspection.

The service worked with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that most of the key areas were monitored satisfactorily. During the inspection we discussed with the Registered Manager how the audit process relating to care records could be improved.

People were asked for their feedback on the service they received. They had filled in a customer satisfaction survey. In addition, meetings with people living at the home took place and as a result changes to the menu had been made and entertainment and activities of their choice had been arranged.

12 February 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people living at Barton Park. This was because some of the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. We spoke individually with four of the people living there and held a focus group with seven people who used the service. We also reviewed comments from relatives and visiting healthcare professionals.

We spent time observing the support provided by staff. We observed staff being kind, caring and respectful at all times in their interactions with the people they cared for. Everyone we spoke with was very happy with the care and support provided at Barton Park. Some comments made were:

'Barton Park is unique; it is like a five star hotel,'

'The meals are excellent,'

'The calibre of staff is enormous; they are very skilful and anticipate your every need.'

There were enough skilled and experienced staff to be able to meet the needs of the people who lived at Barton Park in a timely manner. Medicines were managed safely and effectively and the organisation monitored the quality of the service provided on a regular basis.

16 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spent time with three people who were living in the home who told us about their views and experiences of Barton Park. People told us they were very satisfied with the care and support provided to them. One person said, 'I would give it [the home] ten out of ten. I couldn't rate it highly enough.' Another person said 'They are very good here and so kind. Nothing is too much trouble.'

All the people we spoke with said they were always treated with dignity and respect. We were told the food was of a high quality and there was always a choice available. We found there was a range of activities being delivered in the home including regular social events and visiting entertainers. People told us they enjoyed the social events. One person said, 'Our social life over Christmas was fabulous.' There was a hairdressing salon within the home and people told us they regularly accessed hand and nail treatments.

People who used the service, relatives and other stakeholders were asked to complete a survey about the service once a year. Feedback about the service was highly positive. Nineteen people who used the service completed the survey in 2012. All were very satisfied with: how they were supported by staff; how they were involved in the affairs of the home; and with the choice and quality of the food. A comments box was in place to encourage relatives to feedback their views on the service.

27 October 2011

During a routine inspection

People living at Barton Park spoke extremely highly of the home and the service provided. One person said, "It's wonderful here', another person said "It's marvellous." Another person said, " The staff are so kind and will do anything for you. We are offered lots of choices and can do whatever we want."

Relatives spoken to confirmed they were happy about the care given and also confirmed that the staff kept up to date with regard to their relatives' health.

Six people living at the home said the staff were"Wonderful", "Kind" and "They will do anything to make you comfortable and happy."