CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Reigate Beaumont
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and effective safeguarding arrangements. They also found that the home was clean and had fire safety plans.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's needs and staff had relevant training and supervision. People received support with food, drink and health care, and staff followed consent and mental capacity requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors saw staff protecting people's dignity and encouraging independence and choice.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's health needs, preferences and daily routines. The home provided activities, one-to-one time and communication support, although inspectors said end-of-life plans needed more information.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had improved its checks on care quality, medicines, staffing and risks. People, relatives and staff were invited to give feedback, and inspectors found records well ordered.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and improvements since the last inspection, but noted gaps in dementia equipment and end-of-life care plans.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with 13 people, four relatives, nine staff and health care professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable support with health needs, kind and respectful care, activities and personalised care plans.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement, with two breaches of regulation. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach. They did identify some areas for improvement, including more sensory equipment for people living with dementia and more detail about end-of-life wishes.
Staffing and response
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Call bells were answered quickly and staff supported people during meals.
“There were sufficient staff to support people when they needed.” from the report
Health care support
People had access to a range of health professionals, and staff shared information about changes in people's needs.
“People had appropriate access to health care services in their ongoing care.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness and respect. They protected privacy and encouraged people to do things for themselves.
“People and relatives told us that staff were respectful.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home offered activities, outings and individual time for people who stayed in their rooms. This helped reduce the risk of social isolation.
“Where people were cared for their room staff visited them to undertake one to ones to reduce the risk of social isolation.” from the report
Improved management checks
Quality checks had improved since the previous inspection. Audits covered areas such as care plans, medicines, falls, weight loss and infection control.
“The records that were kept at the service were comprehensive, well ordered and easy to navigate.” from the report
Dementia equipment
minorInspectors said the communal areas needed more sensory equipment for people living with dementia. The deputy manager said there were plans to address this.
“We did raise with the deputy manager the need to have more sensory equipment in the communal areas for people that were living with dementia.” from the report
End-of-life care plans
needs fixingEnd-of-life care was planned around people's wishes, but inspectors said the care plans did not contain enough information about those wishes. The deputy manager said this would be addressed.
“more information was required in the care plans about what people wanted at the end of their life.” from the report
Medicine practice during inspection
needs fixingInspectors raised a concern about the medicine room and one aspect of administering medicines. The provider responded immediately and said the issues had been addressed.
“During the inspection we found a concern with the medicine room and one aspect of administering of medicines.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to the medicine room and medicines administration after the inspection?
- 02Has the home added the extra sensory equipment planned for people living with dementia?
- 03How are residents' end-of-life wishes recorded and kept up to date?
- 04How does the home check that staffing levels remain suitable for residents' changing needs?
- 05How are people who stay in their rooms offered regular activities and social contact?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC key questions; the previous inspection had rated Safe and Well-led Requires Improvement, but those areas improved to Good and the earlier breaches were no longer present. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but medicines handling, staffing and management checks were not consistently safe.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, visitors and staff. They observed care and reviewed care records, medicines, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were treated kindly and with respect. Their care plans were personal to them, their health and food needs were supported, and complaints were handled appropriately.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement because medicines were not always handled safely and staff were not always deployed well enough. The home was also rated Requires Improvement for Well-led because its checks had not found these problems. The previous inspection in February 2016 had identified no concerns.
Kind and respectful care
People had positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw staff speaking respectfully, supporting privacy and dignity, and helping people make choices.
“Staff supported people in a kind and caring way.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people’s backgrounds, preferences and support needs. Staff responded when people’s needs changed.
“People's care plans were detailed and written in a person-centred way.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People enjoyed the food and had choices. Staff monitored health needs and arranged support from healthcare professionals when needed.
“People's healthcare needs were monitored effectively. People were supported to obtain treatment when they needed it.” from the report
Staff continuity and teamwork
The home directly employed its staff and did not use agency staff. Staff said they worked well together and felt supported.
“People were cared for by a consistent staff team who felt supported by the registered manager” from the report
Activities and complaints
People could take part in activities, outings and events. The complaints record showed that complaints had been investigated and answered appropriately.
“People had access to a range of activities and their spiritual needs were met.” from the report
Medicines were not always handled safely
seriousA staff member prepared medicines for two people at the same time and was interrupted during the medicines round. Some people said staff left medicines without checking they had taken them. This was a breach of Regulation 12.
“People's medicines were not always be handled safety.” from the report
Staffing at busy times
seriousStaff were not always deployed so that people received uninterrupted attention. One person waited half an hour for their main meal, and some people waited for help after using their call bell. This was a breach of Regulation 18.
“This meant that people were not always being provided with staff's undivided attention when they were receiving care” from the report
Management checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home’s internal medicines audits did not identify the poor medicines practices. Other details, such as adapted cutlery for one person, had also been missed.
“The auditing and governance systems at the service were not sufficiently robust to have identified shortfalls in practice.” from the report
Limited one-to-one time
needs fixingRecords showed little evidence of staff spending one-to-one time with people in their rooms, especially people being cared for in bed. The manager was reminded to record this support.
“There was little evidence of people receiving one to one time in their rooms.” from the report
Some care details were missed
minorOne person did not have a care plan about their mental health, and another did not receive the adapted cutlery recorded in their care plan. The manager said these issues would be addressed.
“We did find one person did not have a care plan directly relating to their mental health” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicines preparation and administration since the inspection, and how do you check that people have taken their medicines?
- 02How many staff are deployed during busy morning and lunchtime periods, and how do you prevent care being interrupted?
- 03How do you make sure people who stay in their rooms receive regular one-to-one time, and where is this recorded?
- 04How do your current audits identify medicines errors, missing equipment and other care details?
- 05Can you show how care plans and mental capacity decisions are kept up to date when a person’s needs change?
This was an inspection of the overall service and all five key questions were rated; the previous inspection in February 2016 had identified no concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 July 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.
Every inspection of The Reigate Beaumont
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.