CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beaconsfield Heights Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks were assessed. Medicines, equipment, the building and emergency arrangements were checked and managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was assessed and reviewed, staff received training, and people's health, nutrition and hydration needs were supported. Inspectors found mixed feedback about the dining experience.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind and compassionate. People were treated with dignity, had their privacy respected, and were encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs and staff knew their likes and dislikes. Activities were available, but inspectors found repetition, a cancelled activity without a replacement, and limited variety.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the management. Audits, meetings and other quality checks were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and well-managed care, with improvements needed at mealtimes and in activities.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3, 4 and 6 September 2018. Inspectors spoke with 13 people, two relatives and 12 staff. They looked at care records, medicines and staff recruitment and training records, and observed care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, care plans reflected people's needs, and staff treated people with dignity and respect.
There were some shortfalls. Staff deployment at lunchtime did not always give people enough personalised support. Some people wanted more varied activities, and one advertised activity was cancelled without a replacement. People also gave mixed views about how much say they had in decisions.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed kind and compassionate interactions. People said their privacy was respected and staff supported their independence.
“We observed people were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff addressed people by their preferred name.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk checks
Medicines records were completed appropriately, storage was safe and incidents were investigated. Risks such as falls and pressure damage were assessed and managed.
“People who required support with managing and taking their prescribed medicine had this detailed in their care plan.” from the report
Strong management checks
The home had regular audits and meetings covering areas such as medicines, falls and infection control. The management team shared learning and responded to feedback.
“There were robust quality assurance systems in place. A regular programme of audits was undertaken which included medicines, falls and infection control, as examples.” from the report
Individual care planning
Care plans covered people's health, mobility, skin care, end of life wishes and other personal needs. Staff reviewed them when people's needs changed.
“Each person had care plans in place which reflected their individual needs.” from the report
Personal support at mealtimes
needs fixingInspectors found that staff deployment at lunch did not always provide personalised support. One person lost interest in their meal when the staff member supporting them moved away.
“On both days we visited the home, we found one staff member supporting more than one person at lunch.” from the report
Activities were not always reliable or varied
needs fixingSome people wanted more variety. An advertised art group had no staff present, and another activity was not arranged as a replacement.
“On the second day of the inspection an art group was advertised. We observed one person going to the area of the home where the activity should have taken place. No staff were present to facilitate the group.” from the report
Mixed involvement in decisions
needs fixingAlthough meetings and questionnaires were available, some people said they had little say in their care and activities. The manager was told about this feedback.
“There's no involvement. We have no say in the matter. It's all laid out for us.” from the report
- 01How many staff are available at lunchtime, and how do you make sure each person gets personalised support throughout their meal?
- 02How do residents choose activities, and what happens when an advertised activity is cancelled?
- 03What changes have you made to provide more varied activities, especially after supper?
- 04How are residents involved in decisions about their care, treatment and daily activities?
- 05How do you check that staff offer people choices about meals and drinks and respond to what they say?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole home and covered all five CQC questions, including care, premises and management. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 October 2018 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 Beaconsfield Heights Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- October 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Beaconsfield Heights Care Home →
- August 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 August 2017.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.