CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Stamford Bridge Beaumont
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Medicines management, safeguarding, risk assessments and accident reporting had improved. Some guidance and records for topical and 'when required' medicines still needed refinement.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff understood people's needs, received training and were supported through induction, supervision and appraisal. Some mental capacity and best interest records were not consistent.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed respectful and meaningful interactions. People and relatives said staff respected privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and person-centred. Group activities and outings were organised, although records of some one-to-one activities were incomplete.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management and quality checks had improved greatly, and staff felt supported. However, some records and medicines audits did not contain enough detail.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Rated Good and out of special measures; inspectors found major improvements, but well-led was Requires Improvement because some records still needed work.
Inspectors visited on 3 and 4 September 2018. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and meals, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that people were treated kindly, their risks were managed, care plans had improved and activities were available.
Some records were still incomplete or inconsistent. This included records about medicines, one-to-one activities, some mental capacity decisions and quality checks. Inspectors said the effect on people was low in the areas they identified.
At the previous inspection in April 2018, the home was rated Requires Improvement and had breached several regulations. The inspectors found significant improvements at this visit, and the home was no longer Inadequate or in special measures.
Major improvement
The home had made significant progress since the previous inspection. It met the requirements of the regulations that had previously been breached.
“We found during this inspection that the provider had made significant improvements, which achieved compliance to meet the requirements of Regulations 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring and helpful. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and dignity and encouraging people to remain independent.
“We observed meaningful interactions between staff and people throughout the inspection.” from the report
Food and fluids
People had choices of meals and snacks. Staff monitored food and fluid intake and supported people with special diets and eating needs.
“Food and fluid charts had been fully completed and totalled to ensure issues were highlighted and addressed immediately.” from the report
Activities and personal interests
The home offered group activities, outings and individual support based on people's interests. Inspectors saw people enjoying activities and social interaction.
“Group activities were well attended, we observed the baking session and people interacted with one another and the staff using their motor skills whilst singing and chatting to one another.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingMedicines were generally managed safely, but records and guidance for topical medicines and medicines given when needed needed more work. Some medicines audits did not clearly show whose medicines had been checked.
“However, some medicines audits required more detail to confirm which people's medicines had been checked.” from the report
Incomplete activity records
minorRecords of one-to-one activities were inconsistent. Some showed a start time but no duration, and records were missing for some people.
“Recording of one to one activities was inconsistent.” from the report
Mental capacity paperwork
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were missing, unnecessary or did not show that relatives had been invited to contribute.
“Records did not always include relatives input.” from the report
Management records
needs fixingSome records did not show when actions had been completed. This is why the well-led question remained Requires Improvement.
“We found some recording issues that required further attention.” from the report
- 01How have you made sure medicines records and audits now clearly show all checks and instructions?
- 02How do you record one-to-one activities, including their duration and frequency, for people who spend time in their rooms?
- 03How do you make sure mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions are completed only when needed?
- 04How are relatives involved in best interest decisions, and how do you record their views?
- 05What checks now confirm that actions from audits, accidents and incidents have been completed?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with an unannounced visit on the first day and an announced visit on the second day. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 October 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Stamford Bridge Beaumont was rated Requires Improvement, with Safe rated Inadequate, and remained in special measures because inspectors found serious safety and management failures.
Inspectors visited on seven dates between 27 February and 6 April 2018. Most visits were unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, checked medicines and reviewed records for 17 people.
The home had improved in some areas, especially food, drinks, fire safety and the use of agency staff. However, inspectors found unsafe medicines practices, poor risk assessments, missed safeguarding notifications, unsuitable staff deployment and restraint used without proper training or consent.
Care was sometimes kind, but dignity, personal choice and meaningful activities were not consistent. Care plans did not always give staff enough information, and quality checks had failed to identify some problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe was Inadequate and the other four areas were Requires Improvement. The home remained in special measures because Safe had been rated Inadequate at two consecutive comprehensive inspections.
Food and drinks
People were offered drinks and snacks regularly during the day and night. The chef understood dietary needs and knew how to increase the calories in food and drinks.
“People enjoyed the food which looked nutritious and well presented, pureed sandwiches were available which were suitable for those with difficulty swallowing.” from the report
Fire safety
Fire safety had improved. Evacuation equipment had been purchased, agency staff were included in drills and key maintenance certificates were current.
“Improvements had been made in relation to fire safety.” from the report
Some kind care
Inspectors saw staff offering comfort, helping people maintain cleanliness and supporting people's choices and independence.
“We observed kind and compassionate support being provided whilst staff promoted people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Safer recruitment
The recruitment records checked showed that background checks and references were completed before staff started work.
“Recruitment records showed that references and disclosure and barring checks (DBS) were completed prior to staff being employed by the service.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousStaff allegations of possible abuse or neglect were not referred to the local safeguarding authority or CQC. Inspectors made safeguarding referrals themselves.
“Records showed that staff had raised several safeguarding allegations of potential abuse or neglect to the management team.” from the report
Unsafe restraint
seriousUntrained staff used restraint on a person who did not want the care, and the person's wishes were not respected. The report also describes a concern about a person being forced to have a bath.
“We observed staff used restraint for one person even though they expressed non-verbally that they did not want this to be done.” from the report
Staffing and response times
seriousStaff deployment did not always reflect people's dependency levels. During busy periods, people could wait for personal care, food, drinks or help with call bells.
“During busy periods people did not always received the care and support they needed in a timely way.” from the report
Incomplete care information
needs fixingCare plans and risk assessments did not always match or explain how to support specific health conditions. This could leave staff without the guidance they needed.
“Care plans and risk assessments were not always aligned.” from the report
Limited meaningful activity
needs fixingGroup activities and outings were available, but some people living with dementia or staying in their rooms lacked stimulating one-to-one activity and interaction.
“stimulating and meaningful activities or interactions were lacking for those people that were isolated in their bedrooms or living with dementia.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure all medicines are given at the prescribed dose and time, including toxic medicines and creams?
- 02How are safeguarding concerns now reported promptly to the local authority and the CQC?
- 03How do you decide staffing levels and staff skill mix during busy periods, especially when people need help eating, drinking or answering call bells?
- 04How do you ensure restraint is avoided where possible and is only used lawfully by trained staff with the person's rights respected?
- 05What regular one-to-one activities are now offered to people living with dementia or staying in their rooms?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with an out-of-hours visit because of concerns raised by relatives and concerns from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Stamford Bridge Beaumont
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2017Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Inspected but not ratedSafe: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014Inspected but not rated
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.