You are here

Beaumont Lodge Nursing Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 16 October 2018

The inspection took place on 15 August 2018 and was unannounced.

Beaumont Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Beaumont Lodge is a nursing home which accommodates up to 43 people in one adapted building. There were 33 people living at Beaumont Lodge at the time of our inspection.

At our previous inspection on 7 December 2017 we identified five breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These related to a lack of consistent leadership, risks to people’s safety not being effectively monitored, inconsistent staff training and support, the monitoring of accidents and incidents, people not being provided with choices regarding their care and people’s legal right’s not being respected. We asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions of Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led to at least good. At this inspection we found improvements had been made in all areas of the service and no breaches of legal requirements were identified.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs safely. Staff had time to spend with people and worked flexibly to ensure people were given a choice regarding when they received their care.

Staff received training and supervision to ensure they had the skills required to meet people’s needs. Clinical staff ensured their knowledge and skills were regularly updated. Safe recruitment processes were in place to ensure people received support from suitable staff.

Risks to people's safety and well-being were assessed and control measures were in place to help minimise risks. Risks were reviewed and action taken when people’s needs changed. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in keeping people safe from abuse and any concerns were reported to the appropriate authorities. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored by the registered manager and compliance manager. Action was taken in a timely manner to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.

People lived in a clean environment and safe infection control procedures were followed. A contingency plan was in place to ensure people would continue to receive safe care if the building could not be used.

Safe medicines systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines in line with prescriptions. Medicines were stored securely and medicines audits were completed. Appropriate referrals to healthcare professionals were made and advice given was followed by staff. People's legal rights were protected as staff understood their responsibilities regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff explained and sought consent from people before providing their care. People’s weight was monitored and a wide choice of nutritious food and drinks were available.

Staff knew people well and ensured their care was provided in a person-centred way. People’s individual preferences were respected and staff considered how people were feeling when providing their care. People were encouraged to maintain and develop their independence and the design of the premises and equipment available supported this. Visitors were made to feel welcome and there were no restrictions on visiting times.

Staff responded to people with kindness and understood their communication styles. Care plans were personalised and contained information regarding people’s life histories. Staff understood the care people required with regards to specific health conditions and the care they wanted at the end of their lives. However, care plans regarding these areas would benefit from more detail. We have made a recommendation regarding this. People had access to a range of activities. Entertainers visited the service and trips to places of interest

Inspection areas



Updated 16 October 2018

The service was safe.

Risks to people�s safety were identified and managed.

Accidents and incidents were reviewed and action taken to minimise risks.

Safe infection control procedures were followed.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people�s needs and robust recruitment processes were in place.

Staff understood their responsibilities in reporting safeguarding concerns.

People�s medicines were managed safely.



Updated 16 October 2018

The service was effective.

Assessments completed prior to people moving into the service were detailed.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005(MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff received the training and support they needed to enable them to meet people's needs.

People had a choice of food that met their individual needs and preferences.

People's health needs were met. They were supported to access healthcare services when they needed them.



Updated 16 October 2018

The service was caring.

Staff spoke to people with kindness and interactions were positive.

People had choices regarding how their care was provided and these were respected.

Staff worked flexibly to meet people�s needs.

People were supported to maintain their independence.

There were no restrictions in place regarding visiting times and where people received their visitors.



Updated 16 October 2018

The service was responsive.

Care was person centred and met people's individual needs.

Staff knew and understood people as individuals.

Care plans regarding specific health conditions and end of life care would benefit from more detail. We have made a recommendation regarding this.

There was a range of activities taking place and people told us they had enough to do throughout the day.

There was a complaints policy in place and complaints were investigated and responded to.


Requires improvement

Updated 16 October 2018

The service was well-Led

Staff were supported in their role and felt valued.

There was a positive culture where staff understood the ethos of the service.

Quality assurance audits were in place and concerns identified were addressed.

The registered manager worked alongside other agencies to improve the service.

People and their relatives were involved in the development of the service.