CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beckfield
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors visited the home on 21 October 2020. This was a targeted inspection focused on infection prevention and control because the home had been identified as a designated setting for people leaving hospital with a positive COVID-19 status.
They found the home was clean, tidy and free from bad smells. Staff worked in groups in different parts of the building, used protective equipment correctly, and had arrangements for changing clothes and checking temperatures.
The home had weekly COVID-19 testing for staff and monthly testing for residents. Inspectors were assured that visitors and new admissions were managed safely, and that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage outbreaks.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of the quality of care, so the report does not give ratings for the other areas of care.
Clean environment
The home was clean and well maintained, with arrangements intended to reduce the spread of infection.
“The home was clean, tidy and free from malodour.” from the report
Safe use of protective equipment
Staff had clear arrival procedures and inspectors saw them putting on and removing protective equipment in line with guidance.
“We observed staff doffing and donning personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with government guidelines.” from the report
Testing arrangements
The home tested staff weekly and residents monthly for COVID-19.
“Tests for COVID-19 were carried out weekly for staff and monthly for people living at the service.” from the report
Support during self-isolation
People who were self-isolating had plans to support their social needs and contact with relatives and friends.
“Individual plans were developed to ensure they had opportunities to engage in activities and keep in touch with their relatives and friends.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are residents supported to keep in touch with relatives if they need to self-isolate?
- 03How are visitors and new admissions checked and managed?
- 04How often are residents and staff tested, and what happens after a positive result?
- 05How does the home make sure staff use protective equipment correctly?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; it did not rate the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 November 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.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Beckfield was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records still needing improvement.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 04 February 2019. Inspectors reviewed care records, medicines information, staff files, audits and other records. They spoke with seven people, two relatives, staff and visiting healthcare professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people received medicines safely, had their health and dietary needs met, and were supported by staff who knew them well. People said they felt safe and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
The home had improved its care records and medicines management since the previous inspection. Inspectors still asked for better detail in some risk, capacity, nutrition and complaints records. The report says the service had been rated Requires Improvement at its last three inspections, so this was a positive change.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe and meet their care needs. Recruitment checks were also in place, and many staff had worked at the home for several years.
“There were enough staff to support people safely and to ensure people's needs could be met.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them calmly, respectfully and compassionately. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
“The atmosphere throughout the service was calm and unhurried.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans recorded people's preferences, likes and dislikes. People and families were involved in planning care where possible.
“Care plans were person centred and up to date.” from the report
Strong oversight
The management team carried out regular checks and used the results in an improvement plan. Staff described the team as supportive and approachable.
“The management team carried out comprehensive checks to drive improvements to the service and ensure best practice guidelines were followed.” from the report
Cream opening dates
minorOne person's topical creams did not have the date they were opened. The manager agreed to make sure this was recorded in future.
“However, we saw one person's creams did not contain this information.” from the report
Risk assessments
needs fixingSome risk assessments needed to be reviewed so they fully reflected each person's individual circumstances.
“The registered manager agreed to review some people's risk assessments to make sure they were fully person-centred.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome assessments did not contain enough detail about people's capacity to make particular decisions.
“However, some of these assessments required further detail to determine people's capacity round specific decisions.” from the report
Food records
needs fixingOne person's records did not give enough detail about how much they had eaten. Staff agreed to address this.
“In one person's records, details such as the amount eaten needed further detail.” from the report
Complaint records
minorComplaints were investigated and action was taken, but the files did not always clearly record the outcome or the action plan.
“However, information about outcomes was not always clear and action plans were not always included within the complaints file.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure topical creams have their opening dates recorded?
- 02How are risk assessments kept fully personalised and updated when a person's needs change?
- 03How do you record mental capacity decisions and best interest decisions in enough detail?
- 04How do you check and record the amount of food and drink people have had when they are at nutritional risk?
- 05How will you show families the outcome and action plan for any complaint?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 2019 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 Beckfield
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.