CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beckdale House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines were not always managed safely. Inspectors found incomplete records, a missed dose and weak checking systems, although staffing, safeguarding, risk assessments and infection control were generally satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and supported people's health, choices and nutrition. The home had also stopped using physical intervention when people became distressed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to express views and make decisions using their preferred communication methods.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were supported with activities, relationships and community access. Records did not always clearly show progress towards personal goals.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had a positive culture and a manager familiar with the service, but quality checks did not reliably identify shortfalls. Provider oversight and governance needed strengthening.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but medicines safety and management oversight were not reliable enough.
Inspectors visited on 30 November and 6 December 2023. An inspector and a specialist pharmacist spoke with five people, a relative and six staff. They observed care and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
People were treated kindly and supported to make choices. Staff knew people well, supported communication, helped people access the community and worked with health professionals. The home had enough staff and was clean.
There were important problems with medicines. Records were incomplete, one controlled medicine was not recorded correctly, and one person missed a dose because stock was not ordered in time. The systems used to check medicines did not find these problems.
The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring and Responsive remained Good. The provider must send an action plan, and the CQC will monitor progress.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw caring interactions and found that people's privacy, dignity and human rights were promoted.
“People liked the staff team and told us they were treated kindly.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices about their lives, food and activities. Restrictions had been reduced and staff supported people in the least restrictive way.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Skilled and dedicated staff
Staff received relevant training, induction and supervision. Inspectors found that staff knew people's needs and communication styles well.
“The staff team were well trained and dedicated to meeting people's needs.” from the report
Personalised support and community access
Care plans reflected people's preferences and communication needs. People took part in activities at home and in the local community.
“People were supported to maintain relationships, follow their interests and take part in activities that were relevant to them.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousA controlled medicine was not recorded in the controlled-drugs book, one dose was missed because stock was not ordered in time, and some administration records were not signed. The home also did not act promptly when one person often refused medicines.
“People were supported to receive their medicines in a way that was not always safe.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingMedicine audits did not identify the shortfalls found by inspectors. The provider also did not know that the required annual Provider Information Return had not been submitted.
“The provider's governance processes did not always effectively monitor the quality of care provided to drive improvements.” from the report
Independence opportunities could be stronger
minorPeople had some opportunities to help with household tasks, but inspectors said there was scope to build these skills further. A recommendation was made about using a clearer support model.
“However, there was scope to build on these skills and opportunities.” from the report
Personal goals were not always tracked clearly
minorCare plans did not consistently explain how people were supported to achieve their goals or show what progress had been made.
“Care plans did not always capture consistently how people were supported to achieve their personal goals and aspirations.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure every medicine dose is ordered, given and recorded correctly?
- 02How do you check controlled medicines, and how will you prevent discrepancies in the controlled-drugs book?
- 03How do you respond when a person regularly refuses medicine, and when do you involve their GP?
- 04What action plan did you send to the CQC, and what progress has been made since the inspection?
- 05How will you help my relative build independence and track progress towards their personal goals?
This was a full inspection of the care home, covering all five key questions; Safe and Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement, while the other ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 2024 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, September 2017
Beckdale House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 2 August 2017. One inspector spoke with four people living at the home, one relative and members of staff. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home supported up to nine people with a learning disability, with eight people living there at the time. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines arrangements and good protection from harm. People were supported to make choices, manage risks and stay as independent as possible.
People were described as receiving kind and respectful care. Staff supported individual communication needs, family relationships, interests and complaints. The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, and had remained Good since the previous inspection in June 2015.
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to support people safely and help them access the community. Inspectors found that medicines were stored, recorded and managed correctly.
“This meant there were sufficient staff available to support people and people continued to receive support from staff that were suitable to provide support.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their daily lives, food and activities. Staff managed risks while helping people remain as independent as possible.
“People continued to be supported to have as much choice and control as they were able to in their daily life.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with patience and kindness. They understood different ways of communicating and respected privacy and personal choices.
“We saw that staff spoke with people in a polite and caring way and showed patience when people asked them for support.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records described people's likes, dislikes, history and support needs. People were supported with hobbies, trips and relationships that mattered to them.
“The information we viewed gave a clear picture of each individual person and included how staff needed to respond to people's physical and emotional needs” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you make sure my relative's care plan includes their communication needs, likes, dislikes and preferred routines?
- 02How do you support people to take positive risks while keeping them safe when going out?
- 03How will you involve my relative in choosing meals, activities and the staff who support them?
- 04How do you check that medicines are administered correctly and that medicine guidance is kept up to date?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a complaint, and how will we be told what action was taken?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service covering all five CQC questions; inspectors spoke with four people and one relative, observed care and reviewed three people's care and medicine records. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 September 2017 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 Beckdale House
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 November 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 Trafford
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 £1,260 a week. 91 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.