CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Berehill House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable systems for safeguarding, risk management, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control. Staff were considered sufficient in number and had the right mix of skills.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on detailed assessments and plans. Staff received training and support, people had suitable food and healthcare, and the home worked with other professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful relationships. People and relatives said they were listened to, involved in decisions and treated with dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were individual and reflected people's needs, preferences, communication needs and interests. People had access to meaningful activities, and complaints recorded in 2019 had been dealt with and followed up.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective management, governance and quality checks. People, relatives and staff were involved through meetings and surveys, and the provider used feedback, incidents and complaints to plan improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, the manager and staff. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was providing personal care to 34 people, with capacity for 35. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who understood their needs. Care plans were detailed and included people's choices, communication needs and interests.
The home had suitable systems for medicines, infection control, safeguarding, staff recruitment and managing risks. People had access to healthcare, suitable food and a wide range of activities. Complaints were dealt with and the home used audits, surveys and an improvement plan to monitor quality.
The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was also rated Good. This was the same as the previous inspection rating, published on 25 February 2017.
Safe medicines practice
Medicines records were accurate and up to date. Staff were trained and checked to make sure they were competent to administer medicines safely.
“Staff kept accurate, complete and up to date records of medicines administered.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's life histories, interests, choices and communication needs. Staff were supported to keep their knowledge of people's preferences current.
“The provider had a computer-based system for maintaining people's care plans which were detailed and individual to the person.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive, relaxed interactions between people and staff. The home took practical steps to protect privacy and dignity during personal care.
“Staff treated people with kindness and respect.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were supported to follow their interests and take part in activities linked to their personal history. The home also used imaginative ways to reduce social isolation.
“The service supported people to take part in activities that were relevant to their interests and personal history.” from the report
Strong oversight
The provider used audits, surveys, complaints, incidents and an improvement plan to monitor and improve the service. The latest survey found that 93% considered the service good or excellent.
“There was an effective governance system in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and review my relative's care needs and preferences after they move in?
- 02How would you support my relative if they needed help with swallowing, a special diet or maintaining a healthy weight?
- 03What activities could you offer that match my relative's interests, life history and communication needs?
- 04How would you involve our family in care reviews and tell us about any changes?
- 05How do you check that staff remain competent to administer my relative's medicines safely?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC key questions; all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised care, with some agency staffing and one medicines record issue noted.
The unannounced inspection took place on 10 January 2017. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, a relative, staff and managers. They observed care and reviewed care plans, recruitment files and training records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing levels, safe medicines arrangements, trained staff, respectful care, personalised support, activities and systems for checking quality.
There were two points to note. Agency staff were being used while recruitment continued, although the report says checks, training and induction were in place. One care plan for a medicine prescribed when needed was missing, but the manager corrected this when it was identified.
Personalised care
Care plans included important information about people's routines, preferences and medical history. Staff knew people's backgrounds and supported their individual choices.
“Each person had a care plan which included sufficient information for staff to support people's health and wellbeing and included information about people's routines, preferences and medical history.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff built caring relationships, reassured people when they were confused or upset and respected their privacy and dignity.
“Staff developed caring relationships with people using the service. Staff were patient with people, spending time with them if they were confused or upset to reassure them.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
People were offered a range of activities, including music, dancing, pampering and day services. Staff made efforts to prevent people becoming isolated.
“The provider employed two activities co-ordinators and a range of activities were planned in advance.” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible and approachable. The home used audits, surveys, meetings and outside advice to check quality and respond to suggestions.
“The registered manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Use of agency staff
needs fixingRecruitment was continuing because the home had increased its number of bedrooms. Agency staff were used to cover gaps, although the report says their checks, training and induction were checked.
“Although recruitment had been ongoing, agency staff were utilised to fill gaps in the rota.” from the report
One medicines care plan
minorOne person's care plan for a medicine prescribed when needed was not in place when inspectors checked. The manager corrected this after it was brought to their attention, and staff knew when the medicine should be offered.
“Care plans were in place for all but one person's medicines which were prescribed 'when needed' and the registered manager rectified this when it was brought to their attention.” from the report
- 01How often are agency staff currently used, and how do you keep the same staff supporting residents where possible?
- 02How do you check that agency staff have the right training and understand each resident's care plan?
- 03How are medicines prescribed when needed recorded, including the reason they were given and whether they helped?
- 04How are people's activities and personal interests recorded and reviewed if their needs change?
- 05What improvements have resulted from recent audits, surveys or residents' meetings?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and covered all five questions, with all five ratings given as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 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 Berehill House Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.