CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Prestbury Beaumont
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including PPE, testing, cleaning, admissions and visits.
- 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, June 2021
Prestbury Beaumont was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control measures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 28 May 2021. It was carried out as part of the CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, followed social distancing and shielding rules, arranged testing, and had suitable cleaning and hygiene measures. They also found plans for managing COVID-19 cases and safe visiting arrangements.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other areas of care.
Clean environment
The home was clean, with extra cleaning of frequently touched areas during the day. Inspectors also noted investment in hygiene products.
“The home was clean throughout and additional cleaning of high touch areas completed throughout the day.” from the report
PPE and handwashing checks
Staff had training in using and disposing of PPE. Regular audits checked handwashing and PPE use.
“The registered manager conducted regular audits of handwashing and how PPE was used to ensure guidance was correctly followed.” from the report
COVID-19 arrangements
The home tested people, visitors and staff in line with government guidance. Separate staff and entrances were used when people had confirmed COVID-19.
“Where people had confirmed COVID-19, designated staff were allocated to support them.” from the report
Safer visiting
Visitors were given information about the required procedures and could use a designated area without walking through the home. People could also keep in touch by phone and video call.
“A designated area had been established which visitors could access without walking through the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staff trained and checked on the safe use and disposal of PPE?
- 02How are people, visitors and staff tested for COVID-19, and what happens after a positive result?
- 03How would you support my relative if they tested positive, and how would you reduce the risk of infection spreading?
- 04What cleaning is carried out on frequently touched areas during the day?
- 05How are visits currently arranged, and what procedures must visitors follow?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 June 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, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a delay in reporting one safeguarding incident.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection carried out over three visits. The inspector spoke with five people living at the home, two family members, ten staff and two visiting professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, clean premises, personalised care plans and good support with food, activities, healthcare and relationships.
There were two minor areas to improve. Information for prospective residents did not say that key documents could be provided in accessible formats. There had also been an undue delay in telling CQC about one safeguarding incident. The report says action was taken to correct this.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed, medicines were handled safely, and there were enough suitably skilled staff to meet people's needs.
“Effective systems were in place to identify, manage and mitigate risk, to help keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and families described staff positively. Inspectors observed caring relationships, respect for privacy and support for choice and independence.
“Staff continued to be consistently caring. They treated people with kindness, respect, promoting choice, seeking consent and offered emotional support when needed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's histories, preferences and changing needs. People and families were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“We found that care plans were personalised and reflected the needs of the individual as well as their history and preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had access to group and individual activities, and relatives were welcomed. The home was described as sociable and friendly.
“An activities coordinator was employed who provided a range of activities on a group or individual basis and people's hobbies and interests were supported.” from the report
Good leadership and improvement
The report found quality checks, staff support and learning from incidents. People, families and staff were encouraged to share their views.
“There were effective systems in place for checking on the quality and safety of the service and for making improvements.” from the report
Accessible information was not clearly advertised
minorThe home's key information documents could be made available in formats such as easy read, audio and large print. However, the documents did not tell prospective residents this.
“However, there was no indication in either document to highlight this to a prospective resident.” from the report
Delay reporting a safeguarding incident
needs fixingThe registered manager had not told CQC about one adult safeguarding incident promptly while they were away. The report says this was corrected during the inspection.
“We found that there had been an undue delay in notifying CQC about one adult safeguarding incident when the registered manager was on leave.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure safeguarding incidents are reported to CQC without delay?
- 02Can you provide the statement of purpose and service user guide in easy read, audio, large print or another suitable format?
- 03How will you assess and review my relative's care needs and personal preferences?
- 04How many staff are usually on duty, and how do you respond if staffing levels change?
- 05What activities and support for maintaining family relationships would be available for my relative?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection published on 11 May 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 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.
Every inspection of Prestbury Beaumont
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 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 Cheshire East
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.