CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bethany House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention arrangements, including testing, visits, hygiene and outbreak planning. They were not assured that all staff always followed the home's PPE and hand-hygiene policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 controls but some staff did not follow hand-hygiene and PPE guidance.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 28 April 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than the home's overall quality.
Inspectors were assured about testing, social distancing, visitors, cleaning, the home's infection control policy and arrangements for preventing or managing outbreaks. The home had remained free from COVID-19 during the period described.
There was one shortfall. Inspectors saw that not all staff followed the home's hand-hygiene rule of being bare below the elbow when using protective equipment. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
COVID-19 prevention
The home had remained free from COVID-19 and used easy-read information to help people understand the pandemic, hand hygiene and vaccination.
“The service has remained free from COVID-19. Staff used various methods to communicate with people about the pandemic, and how to keep safe.” from the report
Testing arrangements
Staff and residents were regularly tested, and staff had been trained to carry out and process rapid tests.
“Staff had been trained to carry out, and process the quick 30 minute lateral flow test correctly.” from the report
Visits and infection controls
Inspectors were assured that visits were being facilitated in line with current guidance and that the infection control policy was up to date.
“We were assured the provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report
PPE and hand hygiene
needs fixingInspectors saw that not all staff followed the home's infection control policy requiring good hand hygiene by being bare below the elbow. The registered manager said more robust spot checks would be introduced.
“We were not assured that the provider was always using PPE effectively and safely. We observed that not all staff were following the provider's infection control policy” from the report
- 01What more robust spot checks were introduced to make sure staff follow the hand-hygiene and PPE policy?
- 02How often are staff now checked on their use of PPE, and what happens if a check identifies a problem?
- 03How are residents and staff tested for COVID-19 now?
- 04How are visits currently arranged and kept safe?
- 05How do staff explain infection risks, hand hygiene and vaccination information to residents?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not assess the other four key questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 May 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, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some confusion about meal planning and improvements needed to the building and garden.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 1 August 2017. One inspector reviewed records, staffing, medicines and quality checks, and spoke with the one person living at the home, a care worker and the registered manager.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection in June 2015.
Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, up-to-date care plans and kind support that promoted choice and independence. They also found a temporary lack of clarity about that evening's meal, and said some decoration, flooring and garden work was needed.
Safe medicines
Staff giving medicines had training and competency checks. Medicines were stored safely and records and audits were maintained.
“People's medicines continued to be managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed” from the report
Kind, respectful support
Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, choices and freedom of movement. People were encouraged to remain independent and develop life skills.
“We saw the person living in the service appeared relaxed in the company of staff and their freedom of movement around the service respected.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans included what mattered to people, their preferences and their health, welfare and safety needs. They were reviewed and kept up to date, although one plan was still being developed after a recent move.
“Care plans were well organised. Care plans contained information about what was important to people as well as information regarding their health care needs.” from the report
Activities and community links
The home planned activities around the person's interests and supported access to the local community, social groups and possible voluntary work.
“People had access to and supported to be integrated into the local community.” from the report
Unclear evening meal arrangements
needs fixingLate in the afternoon there was little food in the fridge, and neither staff nor the person living at the home knew the plan for the evening meal. The manager arranged shopping and said the confusion followed mixed messages and a lack of handover.
“We observed during our inspection, in the late afternoon that there was very little food in the fridge but some food in the freezer.” from the report
Premises needed attention
minorSome rooms needed redecoration, flooring needed replacing and the garden needed work. The provider supplied a programme of planned works with timescales.
“However, we noted that some rooms were in need of redecoration, flooring needing replacement and the gardens in need of attention.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure there is enough food available and that everyone knows the plan for each evening meal?
- 02How are staff handovers recorded and checked, especially when a person has recently moved into the home?
- 03Have the planned redecoration, flooring replacement and garden improvements been completed?
- 04How often are medicines competency checks and medicines audits carried out?
- 05What activities and community opportunities are currently available for the person living at the home?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; one person was living at the home at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 August 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 Bethany House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 2012.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.