CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Beech Court Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place, including PPE, testing, cleaning, safe admissions and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Beech Court Care Centre was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 24 August 2020. It formed part of a review of infection control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors looked at how the home prevented and managed infection. They found staff and visitors had temperature checks, staff used protective equipment, the home appeared clean, and enhanced cleaning was in place.
Inspectors were assured about testing, safe admissions, shielding, social distancing, infection control policies and managing possible outbreaks. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Protective equipment
Staff were observed using appropriate protective equipment and had been trained in how to use it.
“Staff were observed wearing appropriate PPE during our visit and had received training in its use.” from the report
Clean environment
The home appeared clean and its schedules showed that enhanced cleaning was being carried out to reduce infection risks.
“The service appeared clean and cleaning schedules indicated enhanced cleaning was in place to prevent infection.” from the report
Testing and isolation
The provider could test people and staff for COVID-19 and support people who tested positive, including with isolation.
“The provider was able to test people and staff for Covid-19 and support them should they test positive for Covid-19.” from the report
Checks on entry
People entering the home had infection control information, and staff and visitors had their temperatures checked.
“Staff and visitors had their temperatures checked on arrival.” from the report
Further development
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not describe this as a breach.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention and control changes have been made since the inspection?
- 02How are staff and visitors currently checked before entering the home?
- 03How does the home arrange COVID-19 testing and support people who test positive?
- 04How are new admissions managed to reduce the risk of infection?
- 05How often are infection control and COVID-19 audits completed, and what changes have followed them?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 September 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, November 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicines were not always managed safely and rated safety Requires Improvement.
The inspection took place without notice on the first day and with notice on the second. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files, complaints, incidents, training and audits, and observed care during lunch.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found kind staff, personalised care, enough staff, activities, suitable healthcare support and systems for listening to people and relatives.
Safety was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found errors in medicine records, including an incorrect count of controlled medicine and medicine in a trolley that was not recorded on a medicine administration record. They recommended refresher medicine training for nurses. Four carers and two senior carers had also not completed safeguarding training, although the manager said this would be completed.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff asked permission and supported people's choices.
“We saw people were treated with the dignity and respect.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
People, relatives and staff said staffing levels were sufficient. Recruitment checks were completed, and the home used familiar bank staff rather than agency staff to cover gaps.
“There were enough staff working at the service to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans included people's health needs, preferences and social information. The home provided group and one-to-one activities, including for people unable or unwilling to join group activities.
“This meant people received personalised care suited to their needs.” from the report
Positive management and oversight
People and relatives found the manager approachable. The home used audits, feedback, meetings and incident reviews to monitor care.
“There were robust quality assurance systems in place.” from the report
Medicine records were not reliable
seriousInspectors found two more controlled medicine tablets for one person than the records showed. They also found a medicine in a trolley that was not listed on a medicine administration record.
“We found two more controlled medicines tablets for one person than had been recorded.” from the report
Some safeguarding training was incomplete
needs fixingFour carers and two senior carers had not completed safeguarding adults at risk training at the time of inspection. The manager said all staff would complete it within the following month and provided evidence while the report was being written.
“four carers and two senior carers had not completed their Safeguarding Adults at risk training.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to prevent medicine counts and medicine administration records being incorrect?
- 02Have all nurses completed the recommended refresher medicine management training, and how is their practice checked?
- 03Has every carer and senior carer completed safeguarding adults at risk training?
- 04How often are medicine audits now completed, and what happens when an error is found?
- 05How are people's care plans, activities and end-of-life wishes kept up to date?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, with an unannounced first day and an announced second day; the report says the home had not previously been inspected while managed by the current provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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 Beech Court Care Centre
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 July 2017.
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 Havering
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.