CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Beenstock Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed through visitor checks, testing, protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and plans for managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Beenstock Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and support for family contact during the pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 11 March 2021. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, testing, protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and possible outbreaks safely. They also found that contact with relatives had been maintained through visits, video calls, telephone calls, window visits and balcony visits.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a separate rating for each of the five key questions.
Visitor safety
Essential visitors had risk assessments, temperature checks and lateral flow tests. The home also prepared for visits by one named person for each resident.
“Robust processes were in place for any essential visitors to the home.” from the report
Keeping families in contact
The home kept relatives informed about changes to visiting rules and supported contact through several different types of visit and communication.
“Contact with relatives had been maintained throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Cleaning and protective equipment
Cleaning had increased, including frequent cleaning of touch points. Inspectors found plentiful protective equipment and said staff used it correctly and consistently.
“The home had a plentiful supply of PPE, which was worn correctly and consistently by staff.” from the report
Managing infection risks
The home used social distancing, mealtime groups, zoning and staff allocation to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“Isolation, cohorting and zoning had been used effectively, to manage any cases of COVID-19.” from the report
Supporting religious practice
The home had built a Shul next to the premises so people could practise their faith without leaving the grounds.
“People's ability to safely practice their faith had been supported through the building of a Shul” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection control, visitor testing and protective equipment arrangements are in place now?
- 02How do you record and check the lateral flow test results for nominated visitors?
- 03How would you manage an infection outbreak, including staff allocation, isolation and zoning?
- 04How often are touch points and communal areas cleaned, and how are these checks recorded?
- 05What is the current visiting policy, and how will you support contact if visiting has to change?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the other key questions and an overall quality rating were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 March 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 2020
Beenstock Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and highly personalised care, with Responsive rated Outstanding.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 and 21 November 2019. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records and other management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. People said they felt safe, received caring support and had enough staff, food and activities. Inspectors found that care plans were personalised and that staff supported people's health, religious needs, dignity and independence.
Responsive was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found exceptionally strong activities, links with families and the wider community, support for people's faith and culture, accessible information, and detailed care planning. The overall Good rating means the service was meeting the standards inspectors checked, although it was not rated Outstanding overall.
Personalised care
Care plans included people's life histories, preferences and instructions about how they wanted to be supported. Relatives with legal authority could also view care information remotely.
“People received care which was extremely personalised to meet their needs.” from the report
Activities and community
People had regular activities and strong opportunities to stay involved with families, neighbours, schools and community groups. Inspectors found this helped reduce isolation and support wellbeing.
“People and relatives were extremely complimentary about activity provision within the home and the opportunities to socialise with the wider community.” from the report
Dignity and respect
Staff knew people well and supported privacy, independence and religious practice. People and relatives said staff treated them with dignity and respect.
“People and their relatives told us staff treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Accidents, incidents and falls were recorded and reviewed. The home considered actions to reduce future risks and shared learning with staff.
“Accidents, incidents and falls had been documented consistently, with action taken to minimise future risks considered and recorded.” from the report
Staff skills
Staff training and supervision were monitored. Inspectors found staff had the skills and knowledge needed to meet people's needs.
“Training was monitored via a matrix to ensure staff had completed all required sessions and remained up to date.” from the report
Minor infection-control issues
minorThe home had scored 98% at its most recent local authority infection-control inspection. Inspectors said work was underway to address the minor issues found.
“Work was underway to address the minor issues noted, to help achieve a rating of 100% at the next inspection.” from the report
- 01What were the minor infection-control issues that led to the 98% score, and have they now been fully addressed?
- 02How do you decide staffing levels for my relative's needs, including overnight cover and any use of agency staff?
- 03How will you support my relative's religious, cultural and language needs in day-to-day care?
- 04How will my family be involved in reviewing care plans, including access to electronic records if appropriate?
- 05Which activities would suit my relative, and how would you adapt them if their interests or abilities changed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the care home and its domiciliary care service, covering all five key questions; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 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.
Every inspection of Beenstock Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 July 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Salford
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. 90 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.