CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beacon House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe medicines arrangements, appropriate recruitment checks and well-maintained equipment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, with health professionals involved when needed. Staff had relevant training and supported people with food, drink, choice and consent.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and supported their independence and involvement in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and adapted to people's needs and communication requirements. People had access to activities, end of life planning and a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had clear management arrangements and regular quality checks. Staff, people and relatives were involved, and concerns and incidents were used to improve care.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a minor flooring risk and one concern about staffing levels.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 22 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment and training records, and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they were happy and felt safe. Inspectors found kind care, personalised support, safe medicines practices, suitable staff training and good management.
There were some points to keep under review. Flooring in the main lounge was uneven in places. One relative felt there were sometimes not enough staff to meet people's needs quickly. The manager was aware of the flooring and said staffing was regularly reviewed.
People felt safe
People consistently told inspectors they were happy and felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to report concerns.
“People consistently told us they were happy and felt safe living at Beacon House.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness and compassion, respected privacy and dignity, and supported people to make choices and remain independent.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion and supported to express their views and make decisions about their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, interests and abilities. Staff knew people well and adapted support to their individual needs.
“People received personalised care from staff who knew them well and understood how to meet their needs.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff were trained and their competence was checked regularly.
“People's medicines were managed, stored and administered safely and appropriately by staff who had been trained and assessed as competent to do so.” from the report
Good management checks
The manager used audits to monitor safety and quality. Staff said they felt supported and involved in the home.
“The registered manager continued to carry out a regular programme of audits to assess the safety and quality of the service.” from the report
Uneven flooring
minorInspectors found that flooring in the main lounge was uneven in places. The manager knew about it and accepted it could pose a risk, although inspectors found no evidence that it had affected people's safety.
“However, we noted that flooring within the main lounge was uneven in places.” from the report
Staffing at busy times
needs fixingMost relatives and staff felt there were enough staff, but one relative felt people were not always helped quickly enough. The manager said staffing numbers were adjusted according to assessed needs.
“However, one relative felt at times there were not enough staff to meet people's needs in a timely manner.” from the report
Minibus trips paused
minorA relative said people had stopped looking forward to the usual bus trips because the trips had stopped. The manager said the minibus needed repairs and hoped the trips would restart.
“A relative commented that their relation had always looked forward to the bus trips but thought they had stopped.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken about the uneven flooring in the main lounge?
- 02How do you check that there are enough staff at busy times and that call bells are answered promptly?
- 03Have the minibus trips restarted after the repairs, and what activities are currently available?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing and changing their care plan?
- 05How are medicines checks and staff competency assessments kept up to date?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home itself. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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.
What inspectors found, November 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but records about best-interest decisions needed improvement and there was no registered manager at the inspection.
Inspectors visited on 29 September and 3 October 2016. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff files and how the home was managed.
People were described as safe, well cared for and treated with kindness and respect. Staff were trained, medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Care plans were detailed and activities, food and healthcare were suited to people's needs.
The report's ratings page gives Good for the overall service and for all five areas. However, inspectors found that some best-interest records were not specific, properly discussed or reviewed. They also said the home did not have a registered manager at the time, although a new manager had been appointed after the inspection and had started the registration process.
Safe care and staffing
Inspectors found good safeguarding arrangements, suitable recruitment checks and enough staff to respond to people's needs. Medicines and safety risks were also managed carefully.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse and harm. Staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and whistleblowing.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people's preferences and treated them with patience, kindness and respect. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere within the home. Staff spoke affectionately about people with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, wishes, likes and dislikes, and were updated when circumstances changed. Relatives and people were involved in planning care.
“People's care plans were informative, and designed to help ensure people received personalised care that met their needs and wishes.” from the report
Activities and daily choices
People could choose where to eat, what to eat and whether to join activities. The programme included music, crafts, exercise, quizzes, reminiscence and trips out.
“The home had a programme of organised activities that included arts and crafts, music sessions, exercise classes, quizzes, singing, reminiscence and trips out to places of interest.” from the report
Best-interest records
needs fixingSome records did not clearly show that decisions were specific, made with the right people or reviewed. The provider said the recording process had been changed after the inspection.
“However, not all records we saw demonstrated that decisions were specific, made in consultation with appropriate people, such as relatives or were being reviewed.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere had been no registered manager since March 2016. The deputy manager ran the home day to day, and a new manager had been appointed after the inspection and had started the registration process.
“There had not been a registered manager in post since March 2016.” from the report
- 01Who is the registered manager now, and what happened with the registration process mentioned in the report?
- 02How are best-interest decisions recorded now, including consultation with relatives and regular reviews?
- 03How will you involve me and my relative in writing and reviewing the care plan?
- 04If my relative needs nursing care, how will this be arranged with the community nursing team?
- 05What activities and one-to-one support are available for someone who prefers to stay in their room?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, based on visits on 29 September and 3 October 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 November 2016 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 Beacon House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 January 2011.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.