You are here

Barley Brook Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 18 February 2020

About the service

Barley Brook is a residential home located in Wigan, which can accommodate up to 28 people over three floors. It is registered to support older people, younger adults and people living with dementia. At the time of inspection 27 people were living at the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People’s care documentation was not always updated timely to reflect changes or completed consistently to capture the actual care which had been provided. Audit and monitoring systems had not reliably identified these issues, which impacted on what action had occurred.

People and relatives told us staff were competent and knew how to care for them. Staff were happy with the training provided and the support they received to carry out their roles. However, we identified gaps in staff training and in the completion of supervision meetings, which required improvement. Steps were already underway to address these shortfalls, including the appointment of a new external training provider.

People’s nutrition was met in line with their assessed needs. Meal times were a positive experience, with people’s choices requested and respected. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People health needs were met, through access to a range of professionals and support to attend appointments.

People spoke positively about the care and support provided. Staff were described as “fantastic”, treating people with dignity and respecting their wishes. People felt listened to and appreciated staff spending time chatting to them. One stated, “I can get down, but I know [staff member] will always manage to buck me up.”

People were supported to engage in a wide range of activities, as well as attend outings to places of interest in the local and wider community. People were happy living at the home and had no complaints, however knew what to do should they wish to raise a concern. The complaints procedure was clearly displayed to guide people through this process.

People and staff felt the home was well run and the registered manager and senior staff were approachable. Comments included, “[Registered manager] is very approachable, with an open door policy” and “[Registered manager] is very nice and easy to talk to.” People’s views were sought by care staff and more formally through surveys, however people could not recall if resident meetings had been held. Minutes showed though scheduled, they had not attended any.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (report published July 2017).

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns raised by a Coroner following the inquest into the death of a person at the home. Concerns included the quality and consistency of care documentation, record keeping and failure to make timely referrals to medical professionals. A decision was made for us to bring forward the inspection and examine those risks.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the effective, responsive and well-led sections of the full report.


We have identified breaches in relation to care planning and record keeping, the quality monitoring process, staff training and completion of supervision at this inspection.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Since the last inspection we recognised that the provider had failed to inform CQC of three notifiable events. This was a breach of regulation. Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to this is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provid

Inspection areas



Updated 18 February 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 18 February 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 18 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 18 February 2020

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 18 February 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.