CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Beverley Grange Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, protective equipment, visiting arrangements and the management of infection risks. They also asked about COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and a clean, well-maintained home.
This was a targeted inspection about infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors also asked about staffing pressures and whether these affected care.
Inspectors found the home was very clean and well maintained. Staff used protective equipment properly, there were good supplies, and the home had arrangements to reduce infection risks and manage outbreaks.
The home followed the Mental Capacity Act when people could not consent to COVID-19 tests or vaccinations. Visiting was allowed and followed government guidance at the time.
This inspection did not give an overall quality rating. The Safe question was inspected but not rated, so the report does not provide a current rating for the other areas of care.
Clean and well maintained
Inspectors found the home extremely clean, tidy and well maintained. Cleaning included extra attention to frequently touched areas.
“The service was extremely clean, tidy, and well maintained.” from the report
Good cleaning arrangements
The home had a cleaning schedule that included extra cleaning of areas such as door handles. Windows were opened where possible to improve ventilation.
“A cleaning schedule was in place which included additional cleaning of frequently touched areas such as door handles.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff used protective equipment properly and the home had enough supplies available throughout the building.
“Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately and the service had ample stocks of PPE available throughout the service.” from the report
Respect for consent
When people could not consent to COVID-19 tests or vaccinations, the home followed the legal process about mental capacity.
“Where people had been unable to consent to COVID-19 tests or vaccinations, the provider had ensured the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been followed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures, and have they affected people's care?
- 02How often are frequently touched areas cleaned now, and how is this checked?
- 03What arrangements are currently in place for visitors and infection outbreaks?
- 04How do you record decisions when a person cannot consent to tests or vaccinations?
- 05What were the home's previous full inspection ratings, since this inspection was not rated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; only Safe was inspected and it was not rated, while the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 November 2022 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, July 2018
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding personalised support, while inspectors noted a few record-keeping and care concerns.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4, 13 and 15 June 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, staff records, medicines, training, accidents, equipment and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Responsive. Inspectors found kind staff, safe medicines systems, suitable staffing, regular care reviews and good support from health professionals.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in June 2017. Earlier concerns about record keeping, risk monitoring and quality checks had been addressed enough for the home to meet the relevant requirements and improve its Well-led rating to Good.
Personalised care
Care plans focused on individual needs and helped people achieve positive outcomes. Staff worked with people and relatives to understand their wishes and goals.
“Care plans were personalised and focused on individual's needs which supported exceptional standards of care and outcomes for people.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
Activities reflected people's histories, interests and hobbies. Families were invited to join events, and people with mobility or communication difficulties were supported to take part.
“The staff went above and beyond to offer a wide range of stimulating activities centred around people's life histories, likes and hobbies.” from the report
End-of-life care
Staff were described as compassionate and skilled in supporting people receiving palliative care. People's wishes and preferences were recorded and respected.
“Staff worked tirelessly to deliver compassionate and high quality standards of care and support to people receiving end of life care, respecting their choices and wishes at all times.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had made changes since the previous inspection. Care records and risk assessments were updated, and quality checks were used to identify actions for improvement.
“The provider had made several improvements since our last inspection which had a positive effect on the management and leadership of the home.” from the report
Medicine return records
minorThe medicine returns book was not signed or dated by the pharmacy. The provider said this would be discussed with staff so records were completed in future.
“The medicine returns book had not been signed or dated by the pharmacy to record when medicines had been returned to them.” from the report
Staff appeared busy
minorA couple of visitors felt staff always looked very busy. Inspectors saw enough staff during their visits and records showed staffing levels and skills were considered.
“However, a couple of visitors did raise concerns that staff always looked very busy.” from the report
Rushed personal care
needs fixingOne person said a staff member sometimes rushed personal care. Inspectors raised this with the manager and asked for it to be investigated.
“One person did raise some concerns about one member of staff sometimes rushing when undertaking personal cares with them.” from the report
Menus were not available
minorInspectors did not see menus available for people to read. Staff said people chose meals the previous day and changes were accommodated.
“We did not see any menu's available for people to read and were told that choices had been made the previous day.” from the report
Quality systems still being updated
minorThe manager was still reviewing and updating quality assurance systems to include more detail and support continued improvement.
“The registered manager advised that they were in the process of reviewing and updating quality assurance systems” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure medicine returns are signed and dated every time?
- 02What was the outcome of the investigation into the concern that personal care was sometimes rushed?
- 03How do you decide staffing levels and cover shifts when staff are absent?
- 04How can residents see the available meal choices before deciding what they want?
- 05What changes have been made to the quality assurance systems since this inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including the care provided and the premises; it also checked improvements made after concerns found at the June 2017 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 July 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 Beverley Grange Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Beverley Grange Nursing Home →
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Beverley Grange Nursing Home →
- August 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.