CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Chorleywood Beaumont
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, clear risk assessments, clean surroundings and generally safe medicines management. Some opened creams had not been dated.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before moving in, and staff had training and supervision. Inspectors found appropriate support with food, healthcare, dementia care and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff knew people's preferences, respected privacy and dignity, and encouraged independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences, communication needs and interests. People had access to activities, could raise complaints and received personalised end-of-life support.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team used audits, meetings and lessons-learned discussions to monitor care. One DoLS authorisation had not been notified to the CQC, but this was submitted immediately after it was identified.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some improvements needed in cream records and regulatory notifications.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 March 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They observed care and activities, and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines, staff records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, clean surroundings, well-managed medicines and clear risk assessments. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and their care was personalised.
There were a few issues to improve. Some creams had not been dated when opened, and one Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation had not been notified to the CQC. The home acted on both points during or immediately after the inspection. The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, published in July 2016.
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing levels kept people safe and allowed staff time to support people without appearing rushed.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe. Throughout the inspection we observed that staff were not rushed and had time to spend with people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described warm relationships with staff. Inspectors observed compassionate interactions and found that privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“Staff treated people with compassion and kindness, and we witnessed many natural, empathetic interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, preferences, communication needs and interests. Activities were adapted for people who did not join group sessions.
“People's diverse cultural and spiritual needs were identified and met.” from the report
Good oversight
Managers and senior staff carried out regular checks, held meetings and reviewed incidents to identify improvements.
“The provider, registered manager and senior staff completed a range of checks and audits on the service.” from the report
Creams were not always dated
needs fixingSome creams kept in bedrooms did not have their opening dates recorded. The home disposed of undated creams and agreed to record dates in future.
“Although these were stored safely staff had not always recorded the date the creams had been opened, which meant there was no way of knowing how long a cream had been opened for.” from the report
One missed notification
minorThe registered manager had not told the CQC about one DoLS authorisation as required. This was recognised as an oversight and submitted immediately.
“The registered manager had not notified us about one Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation, as required by our regulations.” from the report
Small survey response
minorThe manager recognised that the local survey had received only a small number of responses and planned to repeat it.
“They recognised that the response rate had only been small, so planned to repeat the survey soon.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the date that creams are opened, and who checks these records?
- 02How do you make sure all DoLS authorisations and other required notifications are sent to the CQC on time?
- 03What has changed since the inspection to improve the response rate to surveys from people and relatives?
- 04How are personalised activity plans used for people who do not take part in group activities?
- 05How are relatives involved in care planning and decisions about end-of-life wishes?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 June 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 Chorleywood Beaumont
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.