CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beaufort House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. This included visitors, admissions, testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and managing possible outbreaks.
- 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, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was a planned, announced inspection on 1 April 2021. It was a targeted check of infection prevention and control measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, not a full inspection of the home.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visits, including a designated visiting room with clear screens, visitor testing and cleaning between visits. People were supported to keep in touch with relatives by video calls.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, following social distancing and shielding rules, arranging testing, and keeping its infection control policy up to date. The service was inspected but not rated.
Safer visiting arrangements
The home had a separate visiting room with screens. Visitors were tested before entering, and the room was cleaned between visits.
“The provider had created a designated visiting room with clear screens in place to reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19.” from the report
Personal protective equipment
Staff had completed infection prevention training and inspectors saw them following current guidance on protective equipment.
“During the inspection, staff were observed following current guidelines in relation to personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Access to medical treatment
Staff worked with the local GP practice during the pandemic to help people access medical treatment.
“Staff had worked together with the local GP practice's clinical lead nurse to ensure people had access to medical treatment during the pandemic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and when were they last reviewed?
- 02Are visitors still tested before entering, and how is the visiting room cleaned between visits?
- 03How are people supported to keep in touch with relatives if visiting arrangements change?
- 04How often do staff receive infection prevention and control training, including training on personal protective equipment?
- 05How does the home currently arrange testing and access to medical treatment for people living there?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 2021 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, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a minor medicines recording error addressed.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 30 November 2017. One inspector met five people living at the home and five staff. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff recruitment and training, safety checks, quality audits and surveys. Feedback was also received from four relatives and two healthcare professionals.
The home supported six adults with learning disabilities, physical disabilities or mental health conditions. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines management, good infection control and suitable emergency plans. People's health, nutrition, risks and rights were well supported.
Staff were described as kind and respectful. Care was personalised, activities reflected people's interests, and people were supported to be independent and involved in their community. The home remained Good in every area and overall, the same rating as at the previous inspection on 6 October 2015.
Enough skilled staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff with the skills and experience needed on each shift. Recruitment checks were also completed before staff started work.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of appropriately skilled staff to meet their needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were encouraged to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“People received compassionate care from staff who knew their needs well.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans reflected people's needs, preferences and goals. Activities and community involvement were adapted to what each person enjoyed and could manage.
“People received care that was personalised to their individual needs.” from the report
Good oversight
The management team used audits, staff observations, surveys and action plans to check the quality of care. Records were described as accurate and up to date.
“Quality monitoring systems ensured people received safe and effective care and support.” from the report
Good health support
Staff monitored people's health and worked with healthcare professionals. Health action plans and hospital passports recorded important information about people's needs.
“People were supported to maintain good health and to obtain treatment when they needed it.” from the report
Medicines recording error
minorInspectors found that a medicines recording error had occurred. It had been discussed with the team and addressed individually, with medicines audits also in place.
“a medicines recording error had been discussed at a team meeting and addressed individually with staff.” from the report
- 01What checks are now used to prevent another medicines recording error?
- 02How will you assess and support my relative's specific risks, such as choking, epilepsy or pressure damage?
- 03How will my relative be involved in decisions about their care if they have difficulty communicating or lack capacity for a particular decision?
- 04How are activities and community opportunities adapted when a person's health or wishes change?
- 05How often will you review my relative's care plan and independent living goals?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 January 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 Beaufort House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £980 to £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.