CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bearwood Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, visitor arrangements, PPE, testing, admissions and outbreak management. The provider also said it had measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Requires improvement
- 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, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection about infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures. It was announced and inspectors gave 24 hours' notice.
Inspectors found that staff and visitors were following government COVID-19 guidance. There were visitor checks, effective use of PPE, testing arrangements and measures to prevent and manage outbreaks.
The infection control policy was up to date, and audits showed that actions had been taken. Staff meetings helped keep staff up to date with changing guidance.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a quality rating for the whole service or a rated score for Safe.
Visitor infection checks
Visitors were checked on arrival, and the home was following government guidance to reduce infection risks.
“This included comprehensive checks for visitors on arrival.” from the report
Up-to-date infection policy
The infection control policy was current, and audits showed that action had been taken to maintain standards.
“The infection control policy was up to date.” from the report
PPE arrangements
Staff were following PPE guidance, with extra PPE points placed near residents' rooms.
“Staff were adhering to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) guidelines and extra PPE locations had been set up near to the resident's room.” from the report
Staff communication
Managers held regular meetings and summarised new guidance so staff could keep up with COVID-19 requirements.
“The managers of the home held regular staff meetings during the pandemic and summarised the latest guidance into bullet points” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently check visitors on arrival and support visits safely?
- 02Where are PPE supplies kept, and how do you check that staff are using PPE correctly?
- 03How do you respond if COVID-19 infections or an outbreak occur in the home?
- 04How are current infection control requirements explained to staff and checked in practice?
- 05What measures are currently in place if COVID-19 causes staffing pressures?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2022 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, March 2020
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found care was not always dignified or person-centred at mealtimes.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 18 and 19 February 2020. Inspectors looked at care, records, medicines, staffing and how the home was managed. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and observed care.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care plans and good links with health professionals. They also found staff knew people well and supported their choices, communication needs and healthcare.
Caring was rated Requires Improvement. During a meal, staff did not always give support in a dignified, individual way. Inspectors also found the dining area was not well prepared and some people and relatives did not know about meetings. The overall Good rating means most areas met the expected standard, but the caring concerns needed attention.
Safe medicines
A specialist medicines adviser checked the systems and found them robust. Staff had training and knew what to do if a medicines error happened.
“We found there were robust systems in place to ensure safe receipt, storage and administration of medication.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw enough staff to support people safely. Staff said staffing had recently increased and gave them more time with residents.
“During the inspection we saw there were enough staff to support people safely.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked promptly with health professionals, including doctors, dietitians and speech and language therapists.
“We saw evidence of the GP visiting, they were visiting there on the day of the inspection.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, preferences and interests. Staff were able to describe people's needs and wishes.
“Care plans identified people's choices and preferences, histories, hobbies and interests, allowing staff to have a person-centred approach when supporting people.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home updated care plans and risk assessments after incidents and used meetings to discuss what had gone wrong.
“We saw evidence of actions being taken and measures put in place when complaints or problems occurred.” from the report
Mealtime dignity
needs fixingInspectors saw staff supporting people with food in a way that was not always dignified or individual. Staff did not consistently sit with people and engage at their level.
“However, this was not in a dignified and person-centred way.” from the report
Dining environment
minorThe dining and lounge area was not inviting or fully prepared for meals. Inspectors said this did not help people with dementia recognise that it was mealtime.
“The lack of preparation of tables not being laid ready for meal service, did not make a positive experience or provide stimulation for people with dementia, to recognise it was meal time.” from the report
Activities and stimulation
minorSome people felt there was not enough stimulation or enough activities. The provider had increased activity hours and planned further training.
“Some people we spoke to, felt that at times there was not a lot of stimulation or activities.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make mealtimes more dignified and person-centred?
- 02Will staff sit with my relative, support them at their level and give them enough time to eat?
- 03How will you make sure residents and relatives know about meetings and can share their views?
- 04What activities are now available, and how are they matched to my relative's interests and needs?
- 05How will you monitor the dining area and mealtime experience for people living with dementia?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says Caring fell from Good to Requires Improvement while the other ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 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.
Every inspection of Bearwood Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- June 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Sandwell
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.