CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Beacher Hall Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, followed social distancing and shielding rules, tested people and staff, and had up-to-date infection control procedures. They signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach to staff risk assessments.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Beacher Hall Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during the visit.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 19 August 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic. Inspectors looked only at infection prevention and control measures.
Inspectors found the home clean and saw staff cleaning throughout the visit. Visitors had to book, use protective equipment and follow checks before entering. Covered garden visiting areas had screens to reduce infection risks.
The home tested people and staff for coronavirus and had procedures for admissions, shielding, self-isolation and outbreaks. The overall service and Safe question were marked inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a full quality rating.
Clean environment
The home was clean, without unpleasant smells, and had designated cleaning staff and a cleaning schedule.
“The home was observed to be clean and free of malodour.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors booked visits, had symptoms checked and were supported to follow protective equipment and infection control guidance.
“When visitors came to the home, a designated member of staff supported the visitors to ensure they followed safe infection control, PPE guidance and to check whether they had any symptoms of coronavirus before entering the home.” from the report
Safer visiting arrangements
Covered garden areas and clear screens allowed relatives to visit while reducing the potential spread of infection.
“In the covered area there was a table with a clear screen placed between the relative and the person living in the home.” from the report
Testing and admission controls
New admissions were tested and asked to self-isolate for 14 days. People living in the home and staff were tested regularly.
“All people being admitted to the home were tested for coronavirus by the care staff on admission.” from the report
Staff risk assessments needed further development
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to continue developing risk assessments for staff identified as being at greater risk from coronavirus.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to continue to develop their approach to carrying out risk assessments for all of their workforce they have identified are at greater risk of coronavirus.” from the report
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the August 2020 inspection?
- 02How do you now assess and support staff who may be at greater risk from coronavirus?
- 03What testing arrangements are currently used for people moving into the home, residents and staff?
- 04How are visits organised now, and what protective measures are used?
- 05Can you explain how the home manages a suspected or confirmed infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 September 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.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Beacher Hall Care Home rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some records and building improvements still needed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 24 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting health professionals. They observed care, medicines and mealtimes, and checked care records, medicine records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were managed, medicines were given safely, staff were trained, and people were treated with dignity and respect.
Care plans were detailed and personalised. People had support to follow their interests and take part in activities. Inspectors noted some improvements still needed, including clearer repositioning records, better signage in bathrooms and clearer explanations before some care was given.
The home was already rated Good at the previous inspection, published in December 2016. Inspectors found no concerns requiring follow-up and said they would re-inspect within the usual timescale for a service rated Good.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff competency was checked regularly and medicine audits were carried out.
“Records demonstrated that people had received their medicines as prescribed, in a way they preferred, in line with their medicine management plans.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People had positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw staff protecting people's privacy and dignity during personal care.
“People experienced positive relationships with staff who treated them with kindness in their day-to-day care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's interests, preferences and communication needs. Families and people were involved in planning care.
“People experienced person-centred care. Care plans were personalised and contained lots of detail around people's interests and preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities linked to their interests. People who did not join group activities were offered regular one-to-one time.
“People had access to activities and the necessary support to follow their interests.” from the report
Trained staff
Inspectors found staff were well trained and supported. Training was 97% complete and up to date at the inspection.
“Staff training at time of inspection was at 97% and up to date at the time of the inspection.” from the report
Repositioning records
needs fixingSome care plans said people should be repositioned every four to six hours, but charts were not always present. This meant it was not always clear whether the action had happened.
“There were not always repositioning charts in place and therefore it was not clear if these actions had been undertaken.” from the report
Building improvements
minorThe home was being refurbished, but inspectors said further improvements were needed, including clearer bathroom signage.
“Further improvements were needed for example, signage on bathroom doors.” from the report
Explaining care
minorSome staff did not always explain what they were about to do. Inspectors also saw one person's plate taken away without permission.
“we did observe some staff not explain what they were about to do.” from the report
Liberty safeguard condition
needs fixingInspectors found one example where a condition linked to an authorised restriction was not fully met. Management said it would be corrected.
“We did fond one example where a condition was not fully being met however when this was brought to the management team's attention they assured us it would be rectified.” from the report
Management approachability
minorStaff views differed about how approachable the management team was. Management had introduced weekly drop-in time and anonymous feedback forms.
“There were some mixed views from staff about the approachability of the management team.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure repositioning instructions are clear in each person's care plan and recorded when needed?
- 02What refurbishment work has been completed since the inspection, including the bathroom signage?
- 03How do staff explain care before doing it and ask for permission during meals and personal care?
- 04What action was taken to make sure all conditions linked to authorised restrictions were met?
- 05How can staff raise concerns with management, and has the weekly feedback arrangement improved approachability?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 July 2019 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 Beacher Hall Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Reading
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 £1,010 to £1,270 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.