You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Berkeley Court. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.


Inspection carried out on 11 February 2020

During a routine inspection

About the service

Berkeley Court is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 69 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 78 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found.

People, relatives and staff gave us very positive feedback about the caring nature of the service. There was a visible person-centred culture. Staff made positive comments about the staff team and the new manager. Care plans were in place; these enabled staff to support people in their preferred way. We spoke to the manager to ensure peoples cultural needs had been fully explored. The manager actioned to this straight away.

There were enough staff to ensure people’s care and support needs were met on the day of the inspection. People and their relatives were happy with the staff team, however felt the agency staff did not know them or their relative as well as the permanent staff. We spoke to the manager about this. Remove space

The provider completed appropriate pre-employment checks for new staff, to check they were suitable to work at the service. People had individual risk assessments in place, so staff could identify and manage any risks appropriately. We saw health professionals were frequently present in the home.

Safeguarding procedures were robust, and staff understood how to safeguard people. Systems were in place to make sure staff learned from events such as incidents and accidents. Staff told us they had training to enable them to perform their roles and were able to improve and develop new skills. Staff felt supported and told us they received regular supervision. However, this had lapsed in recent months due to a new manager in post. This was recognised, and action was taken to address this.

Medicines were managed safely. Infection control audits were undertaken which showed any issues were identified and acted upon.

Respect for privacy and dignity was embedded in the service’s culture and values. People and staff felt respected and listened to. The service promoted people’s wellbeing by taking account of their needs including activities within the service and improvements to people accessing the community had commenced. People made positive comments about the quality of food provided and told us their preferences and dietary needs were accommodated.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Complaints were recorded and actioned with in line with organisational policy. There were planned, and regular checks completed at the service to check the quality and safety of the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good overall (published May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 18 May 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 18 and 24 May 2017. At the last inspection in February 2016 we rated the service as requires improvement. We found the registered provider was breaching two regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008. These related to the recruitment of staff and staff training and development. Following the last inspection we received an action plan from the registered provider that detailed how improvements would be made. At this inspection we found the registered provider had taken action to address the above breaches of regulation and appropriate improvements had been made in both of these areas.

Berkeley Court provides care and support for up to 78 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 70 people using the service. The accommodation for people is arranged over three floors. There are two units per floor. Each unit has single bedrooms which have en-suite facilities. There are communal bathrooms and toilets throughout the home. There are open plan communal lounges and dining rooms on each of the units.

The service had been recently been recently re-registered following the registered provider formally taking over direct management of the service following its acquisition from a subsidiary company within the parent group. The service was at the time in the process of implementing a number of changes associated with the transfer to the registered provider.

There was a registered manager for the service. 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.

The registered manager had ensured care staff were provided with a programme of training and development, together with on-going professional supervision and appraisals of their skills to ensure they were supported to effectively carry out their roles.

Recruitment checks had been appropriately followed to ensure care staff were safe to work with people who used the service. Dependency levels of the people who used the service were monitored to ensure there were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet their needs. Safeguarding training had been provided to enable care staff to recognise and report potential signs of abuse and ensure they were familiar with their responsibilities for raising concerns.

Care staff had received training and were familiar with their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure people’s freedom was not restricted and their human rights were promoted. Systems were in place to make sure decisions made on people’s behalf were carried out in their best interests.

Care staff demonstrated compassion and consideration for people’s needs and treated them with kindness. People were supported to make choices about their lives and provided with a range of wholesome meals. People’s health and nutritional needs were monitored with involvement from health care professionals when this was required.

People were supported to make informed decisions about their lives and a programme of activities was available to enable their health and wellbeing to be promoted. People and their relatives were able to raise a concern and have these listened to and appropriately addressed.

People were able to contribute their views and these were considered to help develop the service. Quality assurance measures were in place to enable the service to be monitored. We saw that action plans had been developed to address shortfalls that had been noted, whilst the service transitioned and adopted new systems operated by the registered provider.