CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 118 Beaver Lane
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood safeguarding and risk procedures. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and accurate medicines records.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- Support helped people achieve better health, independence and quality of life. Staff used specialist training, technology and close work with health professionals to meet individual needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and staff understood their communication and preferences. This rating fell from Outstanding at the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care was highly personalised and adapted when people's needs changed. Inspectors saw detailed care plans, flexible support, meaningful activities and help to maintain relationships.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Leaders and staff showed strong commitment to person-centred care. Quality checks were described as deeply embedded and robust, and staff felt supported and listened to.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found highly personalised care, strong leadership and good safety, while the caring rating fell from Outstanding to Good.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 July 2019. One inspector reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff recruitment and supervision records, quality checks and other information. They also observed support, spoke with seven staff, four relatives and a health and social care professional.
The home supported five adults with learning disabilities and/or autism, and could support six. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who knew them very well. People were helped to make choices, build skills, use community facilities and take holidays.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Effective, responsive and well-led were Outstanding. Safe and caring were Good. The safe, effective, responsive and well-led ratings stayed the same as at the previous inspection in December 2016. The caring rating changed from Outstanding to Good.
Personalised support
Care plans described people's routines, communication, preferences, anxieties and abilities. Staff followed this guidance and changed support when people's needs developed.
“People had very detailed care plans in place, which reflected their current needs.” from the report
Independence and choice
People were supported to make daily choices, learn skills and use ordinary community facilities. The home also used technology to help people be more independent.
“The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion.” from the report
Responding to changing needs
The home created a self-contained flat when one person's needs meant shared living was no longer suitable. Inspectors found this had a clear positive effect on the person's wellbeing and independence.
“The provider had created a bespoke adaptation to part of the building which changed one area into a self-contained flat.” from the report
Staff knowledge and support
Staff knew people well and received training, supervision and access to positive behaviour support guidance. Staff were described as committed and confident in their roles.
“The leadership and coaching provided by the registered manager and provider's team ensured that staff had a full understanding of people's support needs and had the skills and knowledge to meet them.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff for people's assessed needs, safe recruitment and complete medicines records. Medicines were stored correctly and regularly audited.
“Medicine administration records were complete and accurate and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Caring rating reduced
minorAlthough inspectors found kind and respectful care, the caring rating fell from Outstanding to Good. The report does not identify a specific serious failing behind the change.
“At this inspection this key question has changed to Good.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative's particular communication methods, sensory needs and signs of anxiety?
- 02How would you involve my relative and our family in setting goals and reviewing their care?
- 03What staffing would be available for one-to-one or two-to-one support if my relative needed it?
- 04How do you use positive behaviour support when someone becomes anxious or distressed?
- 05How would you help my relative build independence and take part in community activities or holidays?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 October 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
What inspectors found, February 2017
The Kent Autistic Trust - 118 Beaver Lane was rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found highly personalised care, with safety rated Good.
Inspectors visited on 6 and 7 December 2016. The visit was announced 48 hours beforehand because people were often out during the day. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, training, staffing information and quality checks. They spoke with one person, staff and managers, and later contacted relatives and health and social care professionals.
The home supported six people with autistic spectrum conditions. Inspectors found that people received their medicines safely, had enough staff support and were helped to take reasonable risks and build independence. Staff knew people very well and used detailed communication and behaviour support plans.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Outstanding. Safe was rated Good. Inspectors found kind and respectful support, strong leadership, detailed care planning and many examples of people achieving more independence and doing activities they valued.
Personalised support
Support was built around each person's routines, communication, wishes and pace. Staff used detailed plans and positive behaviour strategies to help people make progress.
“The service provided outstanding care and support to people enabling them to live as fulfilled and meaningful lives as possible.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and adjusted how they communicated and offered support. Inspectors saw patience, warmth, humour and respect for privacy and dignity.
“Staff respected people's privacy and dignity. Interactions between staff and people were caring and kind.” from the report
Independence and choice
People were supported to make everyday choices, travel, cook, use local services and consider greater independence. Technology was used to offer freedom while keeping people safe.
“The service was innovative and used assistive technology to enable people to be as independent as possible, such as sensory mats and key pads.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Training, supervision and coaching helped staff understand complex communication and behaviour needs. The provider also worked with specialist organisations to develop practice.
“The leadership and coaching provided by the registered manager and provider's team ensured that staff had a full understanding of people's support needs and had the skills and knowledge to meet them.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were administered according to instructions and checked through audits. Inspectors also found enough staff to meet people's individual support needs.
“People received their medicines when they should and medicines were handled safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How many staff are currently available on each shift, and how would you cover any vacancies or unexpected absence?
- 02How are medicines currently checked, including as-required medicines and any errors?
- 03How would you communicate with my relative using their preferred methods, such as pictures, photographs, Makaton or communication boards?
- 04How often would my relative and family be involved in reviewing care plans, routines and personal goals?
- 05What activities, travel and opportunities for greater independence could be supported for my relative?
This was an announced inspection covering the overall service and all five rating areas; inspectors spoke directly with one person, observed other people's care and reviewed two care plans and two recruitment files. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 February 2017 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 118 Beaver Lane
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Outstanding rating throughout.
- October 2019Outstandingcurrent ratingstayed OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- February 2017OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.