Beaconville Nursing Home

Updated 29 October 2025

We carried out an assessment of Beaconville Nursing Home on 19 and 25 November, concluding on 5 December 2025. Beaconville Nursing Home is a nursing home providing care for adults over 65 years, living with dementia and mental health conditions. The service is registered to provider accommodation to a maximum of 36 people. At the time of our assessment 26 people were living at the service.

The registered manager has made significant progress since the previous assessment, where they had been in breach of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, consent to care and treatment, good governance, staffing, and fit and proper persons (recruitment). The registered manager has taken effective action to address previously identified shortfalls, and clear improvements were evident during this assessment. For example, staff now benefit from strengthened guidance on supporting people with SALT (Speech and Language Therapy) needs and catheter care. The registered manager is also now consistently submitting statutory notifications to the Care Quality Commission as required. Systems and processes are operating effectively, and as a result, the provider is no longer in breach of these regulations.

Leadership was visible and approachable, and there was a culture of openness and learning. Audits and improvement plans were in place, and staff and relatives felt able to raise concerns. However, governance systems were not consistently effective, as some safety actions remained outstanding.

The environment needed further improvement, for example there was an overdue Legionella risk assessment and some areas in the building needed decorating. Medicines were managed well overall, but ensuring medicines cupboards were secure was not always consistent.

People told us they generally felt safe and supported, and staff were observed to be caring and respectful. Staff understood safeguarding processes which were acted upon, and notifications were submitted to CQC when required. Staffing levels were mostly appropriate, with good training compliance and contingency plans in place.

Care planning was detailed and person-centred, and staff worked collaboratively with professionals to meet people’s health and social care needs. People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing, although monitoring of outcomes and consent documentation was not always completed. For more information, see specific quality statement, in the effective section, relating to monitoring and improving outcomes and consent to care and treatment.

Overall, the service demonstrated a caring approach and commitment to improvement, but consistency in governance and proactive safety measures required further development.

Updated 29 October 2025

We spoke with 3 people living at the service, 3 relatives and 5 professionals to help assess and understand how people’s care needs were being met. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

People told us they generally felt safe and well cared for at Beaconville Nursing Home. They described staff as “kind and helpful” and said they were treated with dignity and respect. We observed positive interactions between staff and people, with staff offering reassurance and engaging in friendly conversation.

Relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and these were acted upon appropriately.

People’s care plans were detailed and person-centred, reflecting individual needs and preferences. For example, plans included guidance on nutrition, hydration, and skin care. Staff supported people with fortified meals and thickened fluids where required. People at risk of weight loss had dietetic input. One person said, “They make sure I get the right food and care.”

We saw evidence of staff supporting people to maintain comfort and prevent harm, such as repositioning those at risk of pressure injuries and using specialist mattresses. However, mattress settings were not always recorded accurately, and one person’s repositioning intervals exceeded assessed needs. Wound care was provided, but records showed this was not consistently delivered.

People were supported to make decisions about their care where possible. Mental Capacity Act assessments and best interest decisions were in place for some individuals, and DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard) applications were tracked. However, some decisions, such as room sharing, lacked mental capacity assessments, which meant not all decisions had been recorded in people’s best interest.

Overall, people experienced a caring and respectful environment, with staff committed to meeting their needs. While most feedback was positive, improvements were needed to ensure care records consistently reflected practice and all aspects of care, such as repositioning and wound management, were delivered as planned.