CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brighton & Hove City Council - The Beach House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risk assessments, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control were found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training, skills and experience to support people. The home assessed people's needs, supported nutrition and healthcare, and worked within the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were supported with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff offered choices and encouraged people to remain independent and involved in their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and interests. The home offered activities, supported communication needs and responded to complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the home, but quality monitoring was incomplete. Audits of care plan reviews, training records and staff supervision had not been carried out regularly.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Brighton & Hove City Council - The Beach House was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but leadership and quality checks required improvement.
The inspection was unannounced. An inspector visited on 18 November 2022, with inspection activity recorded from 18 to 22 November. They spoke with people, staff and relatives, observed care, and checked care plans, training records and quality checks.
The home provided residential personal care for five people at the time. It could support up to 14 people with learning or physical disabilities, including short breaks, respite stays and emergency placements.
People and relatives said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines practice, person-centred care, support with independence, accessible communication and good links with health professionals. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Some audits and checks had not been completed for some time, including checks on care plan reviews, staff training and staff supervision. The overall rating remained Good, but the home needed to fully establish these management systems.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found appropriate risk assessments, emergency plans, staffing and recruitment checks.
“People and their relatives told us they felt safe being supported by staff and that staff had the skills and experience to support them appropriately.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness and respect. They offered choices, protected privacy and encouraged people to do things for themselves.
“People's privacy and dignity was protected, and we saw staff knocking on doors before entering and talking with people in a respectful manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, interests and communication needs. Staff supported activities and one-to-one time around what people wanted to do.
“There was a varied range of activities on offer which included, arts and crafts, exercise, music, games consoles and specific events based around people's interests.” from the report
Good health and care coordination
Staff worked with healthcare professionals when needed and followed the advice given. The building had adaptations to support mobility and wheelchair access.
“Staff liaised effectively with other organisations and teams.” from the report
Incomplete quality checks
needs fixingSome quality monitoring had not been completed for some time. This included checks on care plan reviews, staff training records and supervision sessions.
“However, the full system of audits and governance for areas of practice such as care plan reviews, training records and the scheduling of supervision sessions for staff had not taken place for some time.” from the report
Staff supervision was not maintained
needs fixingRoutine formal supervision had not taken place for staff for some time. Inspectors said the systems intended to support continuous improvement were not yet fully embedded.
“However, the providers formal system for staff supervision had not been maintained, and routine supervision had not gone ahead for staff for some time.” from the report
- 01Have the overdue audits of care plans, staff training and staff supervision now been completed?
- 02How often will staff receive formal supervision, and how will you check that this is happening?
- 03How are you monitoring whether the recent quality assurance system is working consistently?
- 04Have staff shortages affected the service, and how will you ensure there are enough staff for each person's assessed needs?
- 05How will you support my relative's preferred activities, communication needs and independence during their stay?
This was an unannounced inspection that assessed all five CQC key questions, with a specific review of infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 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, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few records and policy areas needing attention.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 23 September 2019. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks and medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient, and staff had suitable training.
People were treated with kindness and respect. The home provided personalised respite and emergency support, helped people access activities and healthcare, and worked well with relatives and other professionals. Some records and policies were not fully up to date, but no breaches of regulations were reported.
Safe support
Staff understood safeguarding and how to manage individual risks. Inspectors found suitable arrangements for medicines, emergencies and learning from incidents.
“People and their relatives told us the service was safe. Risks were well managed, and the provider learned from previous accidents and incidents to reduce future risks.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff took time to understand people as individuals. They supported choice, dignity, independence and contact with loved ones.
“Observations of care demonstrated that staff were skilled in giving people reassurance and comfort.” from the report
Flexible emergency care
The home could respond quickly when people were in crisis. Inspectors found examples of staff adapting support and helping people return to community activities.
“People who have come here in an emergency are now accessing the community and their wellbeing has improved.” from the report
Relevant staff training
Staff received ongoing training, supervision and induction. Training was adapted for people's individual needs, including communication and health conditions.
“Training was provided for staff throughout their employment to maintain up-to-date skills and knowledge.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with relatives, healthcare professionals and other services to provide joined-up support and manage transitions.
“The service worked in partnership with a number of agencies, including the local authority, safeguarding teams and multidisciplinary teams, to ensure people received joined up care and support.” from the report
Restrictive practice records
needs fixingSome paperwork about restrictive practices had not been reviewed recently. The manager said these practices were discussed and considered as part of legal authorisations.
“Whilst the restrictive practice paperwork hadn't been reviewed recently, the registered manager told us that it was regularly discussed” from the report
Complaint records
minorComplaints were investigated, but records did not always clearly show the outcome. The manager could explain what had happened and what had been learned.
“Whilst documentation did not consistently record the outcome of the complaint, the registered manager was able to explain the outcome and the learning derived from the complaint.” from the report
End of life policy
minorNo one was receiving end of life care during the inspection. A policy specifically for the home was still being developed.
“A provider wide policy on end of life care was available and a policy specific to the Beach House was in the process of being developed.” from the report
Goal setting records
minorStaff supported people to maintain and develop independence, but goals were not formally recorded. Families may want to check how progress is documented.
“Whilst goal setting was not formally recorded, staff told us how they supported people to maintain and promote their independence.” from the report
- 01How will you review and record any restrictive practices used for my relative, and how will you show that they remain the least restrictive option?
- 02How do you record complaints, including the outcome and any learning?
- 03What is the current position on the home-specific end of life care policy?
- 04How will you record my relative's goals, progress and independence during respite or an emergency placement?
- 05How will you match staffing levels and staff skills to my relative's needs, especially during an emergency admission?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; the report says all ratings carried over as Good from the 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 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.
Every inspection of Brighton & Hove City Council - The Beach House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Brighton & Hove City Council - The Beach House →
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Brighton & Hove City Council - The Beach House →
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
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 £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
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.