CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beaumont Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting arrangements and managing outbreaks. COVID-19-related staff absences had not had a major impact on staffing or support.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although inspectors described regular communication about infection control and safety procedures.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Beaumont Court: Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and staffing arrangements during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 19 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staff absences affected care.
The home had infection control measures in place. These included personal protective equipment, regular testing, extra cleaning of frequently touched areas and updated procedures. Inspectors were assured that the home could prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
Staff absences caused by COVID-19 had not had a major effect on staffing or the support people received. Visits followed the guidance in place at the time, although ordinary visitors were temporarily restricted during the outbreak.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or new ratings for the five areas of care.
Clear communication
The registered manager regularly communicated with people, staff and families about precautions and how people were being kept safe.
“The registered manager was communicating with people, staff and family members regularly to make sure everyone had an understanding of procedures and precautions being taken, and how to keep people safe.” from the report
Infection control
The home had extra cleaning arrangements and checked its cleaning records and audits to identify gaps.
“Additional cleaning protocols were in place to ensure all high touch points were regularly sanitised.” from the report
Staffing during the outbreak
COVID-19-related staff absences had not had a major effect on staffing levels or the quality of support people received.
“Staffing absences, due to COVID-19 infections had not had a major impact on the staffing levels or the quality of support people received.” from the report
Contact with family
The home supported contact with family and friends in line with the visiting guidance in place during the outbreak.
“People were supported to maintain contact with friends and family.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and have restrictions changed since the COVID-19 outbreak?
- 02How do you maintain staffing levels when staff are absent because of illness?
- 03How often are high-touch areas cleaned now, and how are cleaning gaps identified and dealt with?
- 04What arrangements are in place for testing, PPE and managing a new infection outbreak?
- 05Can you show me the latest ratings or inspection information covering care areas not assessed in this report?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full assessment and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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, November 2018
Beaumont Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with limited shared space in one household being improved.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 October 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, managers and staff. They observed care, checked the building and reviewed care plans, medicines, staff records and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe medicines systems, personalised care plans and good links with health professionals. People were treated with respect and staff knew their needs and preferences.
The home had introduced the Butterfly Project and other dementia care approaches. Inspectors found these changes had improved the focus on individual people's lives and choices. One household did not yet have the same amount of shared living space as the others, but a conservatory was planned.
Personalised dementia care
The home used dementia care approaches that focused on people's individual routines, relationships and preferences.
“People had good and meaningful relationships with staff and staff interacted with people in a caring and respectful manner.” from the report
Risk management
Individual risks were assessed and staff were given guidance on how to support people safely while preserving independence.
“Risks to people were assessed and actions were identified and implemented to keep people safe.” from the report
Personalised records
Care plans described people's needs and how they wanted to be supported. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“The service used an electronic care planning system with essential information in paper format, used in case of emergency.” from the report
Choice and involvement
Inspectors found that people were supported to make choices, including around care, food, activities and daily routines.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.” from the report
Less shared space in one household
minorThe middle household did not have a lounge or conservatory, unlike the other two households. The manager said a conservatory was planned to provide more space.
“Being the central household, it did not have a lounge area or a conservatory which the other two households did.” from the report
- 01Has the planned conservatory in the middle household now been completed, and what shared space is available there?
- 02How will you assess whether my relative's needs can be met under the home's current registration, given that it is no longer registered to provide nursing care?
- 03How are medicines prescribed to be taken only when required managed and recorded for my relative?
- 04How are staffing levels and staff skills matched to the needs of each household?
- 05What dementia care training and support do staff currently receive, and how has the Butterfly Project approach developed since this inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions, including care and the premises; the home was no longer registered to provide nursing care. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 November 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 Beaumont Court
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodEffective: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.