CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bushmead Court Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infection risks. This included visitor controls, shielding, social distancing, admissions, testing, cleaning, the building layout and its infection control policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, August 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control arrangements were keeping people safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 12 August 2020. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than the full range of care provided.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, testing, cleaning, the layout of the home and the infection control policy. The home was also signposted to resources to develop its approach.
The report gives no overall quality rating. It records the safe question as inspected but not rated, so it does not show how the home performs in areas such as caring, staffing, activities or management.
Virtual introductions
Staff made short films and photographs so people and relatives could see the home before moving in when visits were not possible.
“These visual aids acted as a virtual tour to enable people to look at areas within the service including their bedroom and see staff within the service.” from the report
Hairdressing arrangements
The onsite hairdresser had completed extra infection control training and used cleaning schedules between appointments.
“The hairdresser had completed additional training in relation to infection control procedures during the Covid-19 pandemic.” from the report
Activities continued
The home found ways to offer activities while maintaining distance, including a planned outdoor performance viewed from the conservatory.
“The service used creative ways to ensure activities were still offered to people living in the service.” from the report
Infection controls
Inspectors were assured about a range of measures, including testing, social distancing, admissions and hygiene.
“We were assured that the provider was meeting shielding and social distancing rules.” from the report
Further development needed
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach. The report does not explain what specifically needed developing.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection control arrangements are currently in place for visitors, and how do they differ from those seen in August 2020?
- 02How are new residents admitted safely, and what testing is carried out for residents and staff?
- 03What has the home done in response to the resources provided to develop its infection control approach?
- 04How are activities and hairdressing provided now while maintaining infection control?
- 05Can you show me the current infection prevention and control policy?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the other four quality questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 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.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Bushmead Court Residential Home was rated Good, with kind, personalised care and safe systems in place.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 18 January 2018. The inspectors spoke with 10 people living at the home, staff, a relative and an external activity provider. They also observed care, meals, activities and medicines being given, and checked care records and other documents.
The home was found to be Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were protected from abuse, avoidable harm and infection. Staffing levels were considered sufficient, medicines were managed safely, and staff had suitable checks and training.
Inspectors found that people received personalised care and were treated with kindness and respect. People had choices about their routines, food, activities and care. The home had systems for complaints, learning from incidents and checking the quality of care.
The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection in October 2015. This inspection found that it remained Good.
Kind and respectful care
People consistently said staff treated them kindly and with respect. Inspectors also saw patient, supportive relationships between staff and people living at the home.
“Without exception, people told us they were treated with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs and preferences. Staff supported choices about routines, clothing, bathing and whether to stay in bed when tired.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Safe staffing and care
Inspectors found enough suitable staff to meet people's needs. Risks such as falls, pressure damage and poor eating or drinking were recorded and managed.
“There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Good food and healthcare support
People had choices of food and drinks, including support for complex eating and drinking needs. Staff worked with healthcare professionals and recorded the outcomes of visits.
“People were supported to have enough food and drink to maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Strong leadership and improvement
The home had an open and inclusive culture. Regular audits covered areas such as medicines, care records, falls, complaints, cleanliness and staffing.
“This showed that systems were in place to monitor the quality of service provision in order to drive continuous improvement.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and support my relative's specific risks, such as falls, pressure damage or not eating and drinking enough?
- 02What changes were made after the medicine error mentioned in the report, and how do you check that medicines continue to be given safely?
- 03How would you support my relative to communicate their choices if they could not communicate easily using words?
- 04How often would my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how would we be involved in those reviews?
- 05How would you find out and record my relative's wishes about end of life care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 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 Bushmead Court Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Bushmead Court Residential Home →
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Bushmead Court Residential Home →
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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
88 live-in carers within about an hour of Bedford
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 £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.