CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beachlands Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks such as falls, pressure damage and emergencies were assessed and managed. Staff numbers and recruitment checks were suitable, and medicines were generally given safely, although records did not always explain why as-needed medicines were given or whether they worked.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had received training and regular supervision, including training about dementia. People were supported with food, drink and healthcare, although some records did not fully show how mental capacity decisions had been made.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness and respect. People were involved in day-to-day decisions, their privacy was protected and they were encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans contained more personalised information and staff understood people's histories, needs and communication preferences. Activities and complaints arrangements had improved, although the activity coordinator had recently left and some records did not explain the extra support people needed to take part.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The culture was positive and inclusive, and people and staff could speak with the manager. However, management audits did not always identify missing or unclear records, so improvements were not yet fully embedded.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Beachlands Residential Care Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in management checks and record keeping.
Inspectors visited without notice on 28 and 29 January 2020. They spoke with five people living in the home, four visitors, seven staff members and six health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for safety, effectiveness, caring and responsiveness. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, kind care, suitable support with food and drink, access to healthcare and activities that reflected people's interests. Building work was taking place, but the home remained clean and the work had been planned to reduce its effect on residents.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. Quality checks did not always find gaps in records, including some mental capacity assessments and guidance about support with activities. Inspectors said improvements had been made since the previous inspection and the home was no longer in breach of regulations, but these changes needed more time to become established.
Managing risks
Inspectors found that risks such as falls and pressure damage were assessed, with guidance for staff and suitable equipment. Accident records and follow-up had also improved.
“Risks to people were well managed. Staff had a good understanding of the risks associated with looking after people.” from the report
Food and drink
People were offered meals, snacks and drinks, with choices and dietary preferences respected. Staff monitored intake when people needed extra support.
“People were encouraged to eat and drink enough. One person told us, "We never go hungry and there's always an alternative.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“Staff treated people with kindness and care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, communication preferences and detailed guidance about how to support them. Staff were seen using this information in practice.
“Care plans contained detailed information. For example, using single word prompts when speaking with a person and physical gestures such as stroking a limb when putting on clothing.” from the report
Improvements since the last inspection
The home had addressed earlier concerns about risk management, accidents, dementia training, food and drink support, care planning and activities.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingQuality assurance systems did not always identify areas needing improvement. More time was needed to make the new systems part of everyday practice.
“Quality assurance systems were continuing to be developed, as they did not always effectively identify all areas for improvement.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingRecords did not always show the person's views, how an assessment was completed or whether another person had legal authority to decide on their behalf.
“Care plan audits had been created and carried out. However, these had not always identified improvements needed in the recording of mental capacity assessments.” from the report
As-needed medicines records
needs fixingStaff followed the instructions for as-needed medicines, but did not always record why the medicine was needed or whether it had worked.
“Although staff followed the PRN protocols they did not always record why the person needed the medicine or if it was effective.” from the report
Activity support records
minorRecords did not always give clear guidance when people needed more intensive support to join activities. Inspectors said staff knew people well, so this had not affected people at the time.
“Records did not always provide clear guidance to staff when people required more intensive support to engage with activities.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that mental capacity records include the person's views and show how the assessment was completed?
- 02How do you record why an as-needed medicine was given and whether it worked?
- 03What support would my relative receive if they needed encouragement or extra help to join activities?
- 04How are the building works progressing, and how will you make sure they continue to have little effect on residents?
- 05How do your current audits identify and fix gaps in care records?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions; it followed a previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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, February 2019
Beachlands Residential Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; it had improved from special measures, but care planning and quality checks still breached regulations.
Inspectors visited on 5 and 12 November 2018. The first visit was unannounced. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, checked the building and reviewed care, medicines, training and quality records.
There had been progress since the previous inspection. Staffing had improved, medicines were managed safely, mental capacity rules were being followed, and inspectors found kind and respectful care. The home was no longer in special measures.
Important problems remained. Some care plans were too general or were not followed. Records were incomplete or inaccurate, staff training and supervision were not consistent, and some risks around fluids, pressure damage, falls and the building had not been fully dealt with.
The overall rating Requires Improvement means the home was not consistently providing care to the standard required. It remained in breach of Regulations 9 and 17, and CQC said it would continue to keep the service under review.
Kind and respectful care
People's privacy and dignity were supported. Staff used people's preferred names and encouraged them to remain as independent as possible.
“Staff showed a kindly and caring approach to people.” from the report
Improved staffing
The provider had recruited more permanent staff and was no longer using agency care workers on the inspection days. Inspectors found staffing levels sufficient at that time.
“The provider had been successful in recruiting more staff, so the service's reliance on agency staff was now much reduced.” from the report
Mental capacity requirements
Mental capacity assessments and relevant Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications were in place where needed.
“The service was now working within the principles of the MCA.” from the report
Approachable management
People and staff described the management as open and inclusive. Inspectors saw the manager talking with people about their views and wishes.
“People commented favourable on the management of the service.” from the report
Care plans were not personal enough
seriousSome care plans were generic and did not explain how staff should meet individual needs, including dementia care and support for people who stayed in their rooms. Staff did not always use the electronic care plans.
“Some people's care plans did not clearly set out how they needed to be cared for.” from the report
Staff training and supervision
needs fixingSome staff lacked knowledge about dementia care and other relevant subjects. The supervision record had not been completed.
“The service was not ensuring it effectively supported staff through the use of such systems.” from the report
Fluids, meals and health support
needs fixingSome people's fluid needs were not properly planned or recorded. There were also gaps in support for meal choices and in the care plan for a person with diabetes.
“Some people's needs for fluids were not being consistently planned for.” from the report
Risks in the building
needs fixingInspectors found trip hazards and doors needing repair. The provider did not have a current maintenance worker and the maintenance book had not been updated since June 2018.
“The provider had not ensured such areas of risk were addressed.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure each person's care plan is personalised, kept up to date and followed by all staff?
- 02How are fluid intake, food intake and repositioning records checked each day, and what happens when records are missing?
- 03What training and regular supervision do staff receive for dementia care, diabetes, falls prevention and first aid?
- 04How do you support people who choose to stay in their rooms with meaningful activities and regular company?
- 05Have all the trip hazards, damaged carpets, faulty doors and other maintenance issues identified in the report now been fixed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with observations, discussions, record checks and an inspection of parts of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 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 Beachlands Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Beachlands Residential Care Home →
- February 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Beachlands Residential Care Home →
- June 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2017Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.