CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bethel House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and inspectors found enough staff to meet their needs. Recruitment, safeguarding, medicines, risk assessments and fire safety arrangements were all found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable food and healthcare, and staff had relevant training and supervision. Staff understood consent and the Mental Capacity Act, and applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been made where relevant.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, compassion and respect. Care plans included people's preferences, life histories and wishes, although some life-history information had not yet been transferred to the online records.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people could choose activities. The home arranged individual wishes, trips and community links, and had systems for complaints and feedback.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, regular staff meetings and a range of audits. Feedback was collected from people, relatives and staff, and action was taken when audits identified improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some care information still being moved online.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 and 12 September 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and management records.
The home was caring, safe and responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines procedures and regular risk reviews. People were treated with kindness, their choices were respected, and care was tailored to their needs.
People had varied food, activities and opportunities to be involved in the local community. Staff received training and support. The home used meetings, surveys and audits to listen to people and monitor the service.
The overall rating was Good. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection in June 2016 also found no concerns and rated all areas Good.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient and staff responded promptly. Recruitment checks were completed before people started work.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them in a warm, respectful way. Privacy, dignity and people's preferred ways of receiving care were considered.
“People were cared for with kindness, compassion and sensitivity.” from the report
Good activities and community links
People could choose from many activities and suggest new ones. The home arranged trips, personal wishes and regular contact with a local pre-school.
“People were able to choose what activities they took part in and suggest other activities they would like to undertake.” from the report
Good food and choice
People were offered varied meals and choices, including fresh food. Staff understood dietary needs and provided support when people needed help eating.
“People received varied meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, meetings, surveys and visits to monitor care and identify improvements. The report found appropriate management arrangements.
“Regular audits of the service were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Some information still being transferred
minorMost care plans were online, but the change was still in progress. Some people's life-history information had not yet been transferred to the online care plans when inspectors visited.
“However, these were not all transferred to the care plans on line at the time of the inspection.” from the report
- 01Have all personal life histories and other care information now been transferred to the online care plans?
- 02How will you make sure staff can access the right care plan quickly if information is still being moved online?
- 03How would you support my relative's specific dietary, communication and health needs?
- 04What activities and community visits would be suitable for my relative, and how could they suggest something they would like to do?
- 05How are medicines, risks and any Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards reviewed for each person?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including the premises and care provided, and all five CQC questions were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 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 Bethel House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
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.