CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beth Ezra
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable infection control and staff who understood people's risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says ratings for questions not inspected were carried over from the last inspection when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The supplied report does not give a separate current rating for it.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The supplied report does not give a separate current rating for it.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had oversight of the home, used audits and checks, listened to feedback and investigated accidents and incidents. Staff said they felt valued and supported.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found people safe and well-supported, but one recruitment decision was not fully documented.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 April 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with 9 people, 3 relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and other records.
Inspectors rated the home Good for safety. They found enough staff, prompt responses to call bells, safe medicines management and suitable infection control. Staff understood people's risks and how to respond to abuse or emergencies. One recruitment decision was made before all employment information had arrived, and the reason and risk controls had not been formally recorded.
Inspectors rated the home Good for being well-led. People and relatives were generally satisfied, staff felt supported, and managers used checks, feedback and accident reviews to improve care. Some people wanted more contact with the registered manager, and an action plan was already in place. The overall Good rating remained unchanged from the previous rating published in September 2017.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. People did not wait long for support, and call bells were answered promptly.
“There were enough staff to support people and meet their needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines records, stock and balances showed that people consistently received their prescribed medicines. Storage, audits and staff competency checks were also in place.
“Our checks of medicines stocks, balances and records showed people consistently received the medicines prescribed to them.” from the report
Good management oversight
The registered manager and provider carried out regular checks and acted on issues. Accidents and incidents were reviewed, with learning shared with staff.
“The registered manager had oversight of the service and undertook audits and checks at regular intervals” from the report
People's views used
People's feedback was gathered through meetings and other checks. Inspectors saw an example where a request for new puzzles was acted on promptly.
“People's feedback and views about the service were sought at regular intervals.” from the report
Recruitment record incomplete
needs fixingOne person started work before all information about their former employment had been received. The decision and the steps to reduce any possible risk had not been formally documented. The registered manager said this would be recorded in future.
“However, the registered manager had not formally documented this or how any potential risk to people would be mitigated.” from the report
Limited contact with the manager
minorSome people knew who the registered manager was but said they did not see them as often as they would like. An action plan included regular coffee mornings to improve contact.
“Some people told us, although they knew who the registered manager was, they didn't get to interact with them as often as they would like.” from the report
- 01Has the recruitment decision made before all employment information arrived now been formally documented?
- 02What checks and risk assessments are completed before a new member of staff starts work?
- 03How often are the planned coffee mornings held, and how can residents speak to the registered manager between them?
- 04What current ratings or inspection evidence cover Effective, Caring and Responsive, since this visit focused only on Safe and Well-led?
- 05How are residents' feedback and requests recorded and checked to make sure agreed improvements happen?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, with infection prevention and control included under Safe; the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 May 2023 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 2020
Beth Ezra was inspected but not rated; inspectors found well-organised infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors visited on 26 August 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection focused only on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
They found good practice in visiting arrangements, screening, testing, isolation, social distancing and the use of personal protective equipment. The home also used video calls and adapted activities to help people stay connected with families and friends.
The home was inspected but not rated. Inspectors said they were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed, but this visit did not provide ratings for the other areas of care.
Safer family visits
Visits were booked and staggered. They took place in the garden with a transparent screen, and visitors were screened and given PPE.
“The service used a booking system for visits from families and friends and staggered the times of visits to reduce the risk of spreading infection between people.” from the report
Testing and isolation
The home followed guidance for hospital discharges and new admissions. People who needed to isolate had dedicated staff, and an adjoining flat could be used to support isolation or distancing.
“The provider had a flat next door to the service that could be used to support people to isolate or socially distance.” from the report
Support for contact and activities
The home used video calls and adapted activities so people could stay in touch and continue some familiar experiences during the pandemic.
“The service used video calls to make sure people had regular contact with their families and friends and the provider delivered activities for people in creative ways.” from the report
Preparedness and PPE
Inspectors found an up-to-date infection control policy, a contingency plan, monitoring systems and a large stock of PPE.
“The provider had an up-to-date infection prevention and control policy and business contingency plan and used a Covid-19 pandemic checklist and a daily PPE monitoring system” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently arrange and manage visits from families and friends?
- 02What are your current arrangements for testing, new admissions and isolation?
- 03How would you support a resident who needed to isolate, including staffing arrangements?
- 04How do you make sure staff use PPE safely and that supplies are available?
- 05How do you currently help residents keep in touch with family and continue activities if visits are restricted?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the home was inspected but not rated and the other care areas 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.
Every inspection of Beth Ezra
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 December 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 Croydon
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. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.