CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Edgbaston Beaumont
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. This included visitor checks, testing, protective equipment, cleaning, hygiene and plans for managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Edgbaston Beaumont was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was a targeted inspection on 8 April 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The visit was announced the day before.
Inspectors found checks for visitors, regular COVID-19 testing, appropriate use of protective equipment and enough supplies. They were assured that people were monitored for symptoms and that the home was clean.
The home communicated regularly with people, staff and relatives about COVID-19 precautions. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Visitor checks
The home checked visitors to help prevent infections spreading.
“Checks were carried out on visitors to the service to prevent the spread of COVID-19.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff were using protective equipment properly, with supplies available and safe arrangements for removing and disposing of it.
“Staff were wearing PPE appropriately. There were sufficient supplies of PPE located around the service” from the report
Testing and monitoring
People and staff had regular COVID-19 testing, and people's health and wellbeing were monitored for symptoms and other infections.
“Regular testing in line with government guidelines for COVID-19 took place for people and the staff team.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and had increased cleaning schedules related to COVID-19.
“The home was clean. Cleaning schedules had been enhanced to include additional cleaning in relation to COVID-19.” from the report
Communication
The management team kept people, staff and relatives informed about COVID-19 precautions.
“The management team communicated regularly with people, staff and relatives about COVID -19” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are visitors currently checked before entering the home?
- 03How is COVID-19 or other infection testing arranged for people and staff?
- 04How are people monitored for symptoms of infection?
- 05How often are enhanced cleaning schedules reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care quality areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 April 2021 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, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and staff practice needing improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 11 December 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care, mealtimes and how people were supported.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were generally safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who knew their needs and preferences.
Inspectors found some points to improve. They saw one unsafe moving and handling technique, some staff did not know enough about authorised restrictions on people's liberty, and some care records gave conflicting instructions. Staffing levels also received mixed views, although inspectors saw enough staff on the day.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicate respectfully and support people's dignity, privacy and independence. People and relatives spoke positively about the staff.
“A caring staff team continued to provide people with sensitive and compassionate support.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's life histories, preferences and important relationships. Staff supported cultural, religious and communication needs.
“People's care plans were personalised and included their individual life histories and preferences.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in activities and pursue hobbies and interests. The home also supported trips and links with the local community.
“People had access to activities, events and interests which they enjoyed and which reflected their needs, interests and preferences.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had choice over meals, including support for choking and malnutrition risks. Inspectors found systems for accessing health professionals and sharing information during hospital transfers.
“People spoke very positively about the food and drinks they received in the home.” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible and approachable, and people, relatives and staff were asked for feedback. Quality checks and action plans were in place.
“The registered manager led by example and encouraged an open and honest culture within their staff team.” from the report
Moving and handling practice
needs fixingInspectors saw one inappropriate technique being used to help a person stand. The manager said this would be addressed with all staff.
“However, we observed on one occasion an inappropriate technique of supporting a person to stand.” from the report
Knowledge of restrictions
needs fixingSome staff did not know which people had authorised restrictions on their liberty or what those authorisations meant. The manager said this would be addressed after the inspection.
“Some staff we spoke with did not know which people had authorised DoLS and what it meant for people.” from the report
Conflicting care instructions
needs fixingSome care records contained contradictory guidance for staff. Inspectors said staff knowledge and skills kept people safe, but the records still needed correcting.
“We sampled some audits and found they hadn't all identified that some care records were contradictory in the guidance for staff to follow.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken since the inspection to make sure every staff member uses the correct moving and handling technique?
- 02How do you check that staff understand which people have authorised restrictions on their liberty and what those restrictions mean?
- 03How are contradictory instructions in care records found and corrected, and how often are records reviewed?
- 04How do you decide staffing levels for busy periods, and how do you respond when people need more help in lounges?
- 05How are people's feedback and complaints used to make changes to the home?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 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 Edgbaston Beaumont
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
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 Birmingham
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.