CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beachcomber Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, medicines being managed safely and systems for responding to safeguarding concerns. They noted some inconsistencies between old and new risk records, and unclear written guidance for some medicines, which was corrected during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and support. People received help with food, drink and healthcare, and inspectors found improvements in mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had regular audits and action plans, but its checks did not consistently identify or correct problems in records. The new care processes were still being introduced and were not yet embedded.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective care, but management checks and records still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors carried out inspection activity from 12 to 21 December 2022 and visited the home on 12 December. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, observed care, and checked care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Effective. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, improved risk management, suitable training, good access to healthcare and support with food and drink. They also found the home clean and well maintained.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Audits were taking place, but they did not always find inconsistencies in risk assessments and written medicines guidance. A new electronic care system was being introduced, but it was not yet fully up to date or embedded.
The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, with legal breaches. Inspectors found improvements and said the home was no longer in breach. The overall rating therefore improved to Good, although this inspection did not cover Caring or Responsive.
Staffing
Inspectors saw staff respond quickly and found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started.
“There were enough staff in the home to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safety systems
Risk assessments and safety monitoring had improved since the previous inspection. Staff understood people's current risks and how to reduce them.
“Risks to people had been assessed, and safety was monitored.” from the report
Staff skills
Staff received training, supervision and competency checks. New staff completed a robust induction.
“Staff had the appropriate training and skills to provide effective care.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People could choose meals and where to eat. The home supported individual diets and made appropriate referrals to healthcare professionals.
“The service catered for people's individual dietary needs, such as modified or fortified diets.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingAudits were regular and up to date, but they did not consistently identify problems in medicines guidance and risk assessments. This was part of the reason for the Requires Improvement rating for Well-led.
“These did not, however, identify the inconsistencies we found with written medicines guidance and risk assessments.” from the report
Care records
needs fixingSome risks were recorded differently in the old and new systems. The new care system was not yet fully updated or embedded.
“There were some inconsistencies in people's assessed risks between old and new systems being used in the home.” from the report
Medicine instructions
needs fixingWritten instructions were not always clear for medicines used when needed and medicines applied to the skin. The manager provided additional guidance during the inspection.
“There was inconsistent written guidance in place for 'when required' medicines and topical medicines.” from the report
Feedback follow-up
minorPeople, relatives and staff could give feedback, but there was no set process for showing them what changed as a result.
“There was no set process for letting people and staff know how changes had been made following their feedback.” from the report
- 01Has the new electronic care system now been fully updated, and how do you check that risk records are consistent?
- 02How do you now audit written instructions for medicines used when needed and medicines applied to the skin?
- 03How do you show people, relatives and staff what action was taken after they gave feedback?
- 04What evidence can you show that the improvements required after the previous inspection have been maintained?
- 05What were the latest ratings for Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 January 2023 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, November 2021
Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks, personal care and management systems were not always handled safely, although medicines, infection control and staff training were strong.
Inspectors made an unannounced focused visit on 31 August and 1 September 2021. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They also checked care, medicine, staffing, nutrition, personal care and management records.
They found that risks were not always assessed, monitored or managed properly. Some people did not always receive enough time for person-centred support or the personal care they needed, including bathing. Legal authorisation was also missing or out of date for some people who were deprived of their liberty.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, and for Safe, Effective and Well-led. This was a fall from Good at the previous inspection, published in March 2018. The provider took immediate action after the visit, but CQC required an action plan and said it would monitor the home and return.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The service was preventing and controlling infection, and had managed well throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had the skills and knowledge needed for their roles. They received regular training, supervision and appraisals, and new staff had a thorough induction.
“New members of staff completed a thorough induction.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had enough food and drink, with choices suited to their needs. The home monitored weight and referred people to health professionals when needed.
“People were supported and encouraged to eat and drink well.” from the report
Response to feedback
The manager responded quickly to the issues raised during the inspection and introduced new systems and procedures.
“The registered manager responded immediately during and after the inspection.” from the report
Personal care
needs fixingSome people went significant periods without a bath, and records were inaccurate. Some people also said they did not have enough choice about when to bathe or shower.
“Bathing records showed that some people went significant periods of time without a bath.” from the report
Liberty safeguards
seriousOne legal authorisation had expired and another application had been waiting since February 2019. This meant legal authority was not always in place when people were deprived of their liberty.
“Legal authorisation was not always in place to deprive people of their liberty to receive care and treatment.” from the report
Staff time
needs fixingAlthough there were enough staff to keep people safe, staff did not always have enough time to provide person-centred support. The staffing calculation tool did not properly reflect people's support needs.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe. However, staff did not always have enough time to provide person-centred care.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingAudits did not identify several problems found by inspectors, including bathing records, risk scores and the atmosphere of the home. A bathing audit was introduced after the inspection.
“Quality assurance within the service was not always effective.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that risk assessments are accurate and that repositioning and other planned care are recorded?
- 02What is the current process for making sure every person receives bathing or showering at the time and frequency they choose?
- 03Have all outstanding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications and renewals now been dealt with?
- 04What staffing tool are you now using, and how does it reflect each person's support needs and the time needed for person-centred care?
- 05How do your audits now identify problems with care records, the environment and staff culture before they affect residents?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led because of concerns about staffing, nutrition, personal care and management; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 November 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.
Every inspection of Beachcomber Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 November 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.