You are here

Archived: Beaumont Court Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 24 February 2017

Beaumont Court is a residential care home based in Prudhoe, Northumberland which provides accommodation and personal care and support, for up to eight people with learning and/or physical disabilities. There were seven people in receipt of care from the service at the time of our visit.

This inspection took place on the 26 and 27 January 2017 and was unannounced.

The last inspection we carried out at this service was in October 2015 at which the provider was found to be in breach of three of the regulations namely safeguarding people from abuse and improper treatment, staffing and good governance. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider had complied with the legal requirements of all three of the aforementioned regulations.

A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection who had been registered with the Commission to manage the carrying on of the regulated activity since August 2016. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who were able to talk with us told us they felt safe living at the service. Relatives confirmed they had no concerns about their family member's care or how they were treated by staff. Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place for staff to follow and records showed that historic safeguarding cases had been dealt with appropriately.

Staffing levels had improved since our last inspection and permanent members of staff had been recruited. Staff and relatives told us this had led to more consistent care being delivered. Staff support had improved also in that staff were appropriately inducted, supervised and appraised. The training that staff needed to fulfil their roles had been reviewed and staff training had been brought up to date in key areas. Training In other topics relevant to the needs of the individual people whom the staff team supported, was planned to be completed in the near future.

Recruitment procedures remained robust, as they had been at our last inspection visit. Medicines continued to be managed safely and any medicines related issues were picked up promptly and addressed through the provider's quality assurance systems.

Risks that people were exposed to in their daily lives were assessed and regularly reviewed to protect people's safety. Environmental risks were well managed and emergency planning had been considered. Accidents and incidents were responded to appropriately. Analysis of accidents and incidents took place so that measures could be put in place to prevent repeat events.

People's needs were met and staff displayed a good overarching knowledge of how to support people, their behaviours, likes and dislikes. People and staff enjoyed good relationships and there was a calm happy atmosphere within the home. Medical attention from external healthcare professionals was sought in a timely manner whenever necessary.

Staff maintained people's privacy and dignity and encouraged them to be as independent as possible. People had choices about how they lived their lives and they were all active within the local community, for example, by attending day centres and going horse riding regularly.

CQC monitors the application of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and deprivation of liberty safeguards. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) was appropriately applied and the provider had submitted applications to the local authority to deprive people of their liberty lawfully, to prevent them from coming to any harm where they lacked capacity. The service understood their legal responsibility under this act and they assessed people’s capacity when their care commenced and on an on-going basis when necessary. Decisions that needed to be made i

Inspection areas



Updated 24 February 2017

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe when in receipt of care from the service.

Systems and processes were in place which staff followed to protect people from abuse or improper treatment.

Staffing levels had improved since our last visit and as a result, continuity of care had improved.

Medicines and recruitment processes and procedures continued to be robust.

Risks that people were exposed to in their daily lives and within their environment had been appropriately assessed and measures put in place to mitigate these risks as much as possible.



Updated 24 February 2017

The service was effective.

People told us their needs were met.

Staff supported people to maintain their general health and wellbeing and to meet their nutritional needs.

The support staff received had improved. They were now suitably inducted, trained, supervised and appraised.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was appropriately applied.



Updated 24 February 2017

The service was caring.

People and staff enjoyed good relationships.

People described staff as kind and caring. There was a positive and vibrant atmosphere within the home.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and they encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

People and their relatives were involved in their care.



Updated 24 February 2017

The service was responsive.

The care people received was person-centred.

Care was appropriately monitored and changes were made to care delivery as people's needs changed.

Care planning and risk assessment documentation was regularly reviewed and updated to ensure it remained current.

People lived active lives and pursued a range of activities within the community.

Choice was promoted throughout all aspects of the service.

A robust complaints procedure was in place and feedback was obtained through a variety of different channels.



Updated 24 February 2017

The service was well-led.

People, their relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the registered manager and her approach.

Staff told us they worked well as a team and good leadership was in place.

Improvements within the service had been made since our last visit. Quality assurance systems were now appropriately applied and effective in identifying any shortfalls within the service.

The provider had a good overview of the performance of the service and any risks that existed.

Action plans were used to drive through improvements.