CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Beach Lawns Residential and Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks such as falls, poor nutrition, pressure damage and mobility problems were identified and reviewed. Medicines, recruitment, safeguarding and infection control were also found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's physical, emotional and social needs. Staff were trained and supervised, people were supported with food and drink, and staff worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. No concerns were identified in the information reviewed, and a rating from an earlier comprehensive inspection was used in the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. No concerns were identified in the information reviewed, and a rating from an earlier comprehensive inspection was used in the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had audits and systems to monitor care, medicines, training, incidents and infection control. People and staff said they could raise concerns, and the provider had acted on problems found at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Beach Lawns Residential and Nursing Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, but activities had reduced during the pandemic.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 29 June 2021. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records. They also checked infection prevention and control.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient for the people living there, and staff had the right checks and training. Care plans reflected people's needs, choices and personal histories.
People generally felt well cared for and had good relationships with staff. However, several people said activities had stopped or reduced during the Covid-19 pandemic. The manager said a new activities coordinator had been recruited and activities were expected to restart soon.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in April 2020. The provider had addressed the two earlier breaches, relating to safe care and treatment and good governance, and was no longer in breach.
Kind relationships
People were positive about staff and inspectors observed relaxed, friendly interactions. Staff took time to talk with people and provided support without rushing.
“People were relaxed and confident with staff, we observed relaxed and friendly interactions.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, personalities and histories. They also recorded what people could do independently and the choices they could make.
“People's care plans were person-centred and focussed on their needs and care preferences.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and at the correct temperature. The electronic recording system, stock checks and regular audits supported safe medicines management.
“Medicines were managed safely. Medicines were stored safely in a locked cabinet secured to the wall when not in use.” from the report
Good infection control
The home was clean and inspectors were assured about its arrangements for visitors, protective equipment, testing and managing infection outbreaks.
“The home was visibly clean and smelt fresh throughout.” from the report
Improvement since last inspection
The provider had addressed the problems found at the previous inspection. The two previous regulatory breaches had been resolved by this visit.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Few activities
minorPeople said they had missed activities since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, including exercise and church services. A new activities coordinator had been recruited, but activities had not yet restarted at the time of the inspection.
“No activities. One day is the same as the next, nothing happening, no stimulation, we used to have keep fit.” from the report
Staffing linked to occupancy
needs fixingInspectors found enough staff for the number of people living in the home at the time. They noted that staffing would only remain sufficient for that current number, so families should ask how staffing would change if occupancy increased.
“However, staffing levels were only sufficient to meet the support needs of the current number of people living at the home.” from the report
Manager registration pending
minorThere was no manager registered with the CQC at the time of the inspection. The manager had submitted an application to become registered.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01What organised activities are now available, and how often do they take place?
- 02How many staff are on duty for each unit, and what would happen if more people moved into the home?
- 03Has the manager's application to become registered with the CQC been completed?
- 04How are medicines checked using the electronic medicines recording system, and how are any errors followed up?
- 05How will the home make sure each person's interests, routines and social needs are included in their care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit and earlier ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 July 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, March 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but gaps in risk records, medicines checks and management oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 January 2020. The inspection team spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also checked care, medicines, incident and management records.
People and relatives generally said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff were described as kind and respectful. Staffing, recruitment, safeguarding, activities, complaints handling and links with healthcare services were positive.
However, records did not always show that people received the care they needed. Inspectors found gaps in repositioning, oral healthcare, seizure monitoring, risk assessments and nutritional records. They also found two expired medicines. The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, with the same rating for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Caring and Responsive were rated Good.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors observed friendly interactions and support that respected people's dignity and choices.
“We observed friendly and caring interactions between staff and people living at the service.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
People and relatives did not raise significant staffing concerns. Staffing levels were considered sufficient, and required recruitment checks had been completed.
“All required pre-employment checks had been carried out including criminal record checks and getting references from previous employers.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People could choose from regular activities, including exercise, music, quizzes and visits. People and relatives were also involved in meetings and staff recruitment.
“People at the service were included in the recruitment of staff, sitting in on interviews and talking with prospective staff members.” from the report
Complaints and healthcare support
Complaints were responded to and reviewed for lessons. People had access to healthcare professionals, and external professionals gave positive feedback about the home.
“Complaints were handled effectively and recorded and reviewed.” from the report
Risk records were incomplete
seriousRecords did not always prove that planned care had been given. This included repositioning, seizure monitoring, toilet use and a risk assessment after a fall.
“Inaccurate or incomplete records did not clearly evidence the level care delivery people had received which may place them at risk.” from the report
Expired medicines
seriousTwo medicines were past their expiry date. One was an emergency epilepsy medicine, and some doses of the other medicine had been given after it expired.
“We found two medicines that were passed their expiry date.” from the report
Oral healthcare records
needs fixingRecords did not consistently show that people received oral healthcare at the level planned, including where two-hourly support was required.
“The standard of record keeping relating to oral healthcare provision did not evidence people received an appropriate level of support.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingCapacity assessments were completed, but records did not always clearly identify the specific best interest decision or everyone consulted.
“It was not clear who had been involved in any specific best interest decisions.” from the report
Care planning detail
needs fixingSome life histories and end of life plans needed more personalised information. One known food allergy was also missing from a nutritional care plan.
“End of life care records required developing to ensure they were fully personalised, accurate and explore the specific need of the person.” from the report
- 01How have you improved checks on risk records for repositioning, seizures, falls and other known medical risks?
- 02How do you now check that all medicines are within their expiry dates, especially emergency medicines?
- 03How will you prove that people receive the oral healthcare and nutritional support recorded in their care plans?
- 04What changes have you made to audits and governance so that gaps in care records are identified quickly?
- 05How are you improving the detail in mental capacity, life history and end of life care records?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2020 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 Beach Lawns Residential and Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Beach Lawns Residential and Nursing Home →
- March 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Beach Lawns Residential and Nursing Home →
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014Inspected but not rated
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 2010.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.