You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 26 February 2020

About the service

Beaumont House is registered to provide personal care to people living in specialist 'extra care' housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single households in a shared site or building. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection only looked at people's personal care service.

Beaumont House provides rented accommodation in 47 one-bedroom flats and 13 two-bedroom flats. There is a communal lounge and dining area on the ground floor that people can use if they wish. At the time of our inspection, there were 55 people living at Beaumont House, of which 48 people were receiving personal care

People's experience of using this service

At the last inspection, we found there was a breach of regulation because poor management meant people could not be confident they would receive safe, good quality care. Managers and care staff did not communicate and work well as a team, resulting in a negative, unsettled atmosphere.

At this inspection we found the provider had taken action to address our concerns and the service was no longer in breach.

However, the provider needed more time to implement their action plan, as some improvements, such as new care plans and staff training were still being rolled out. The registered manager had helped introduce many of the changes since our last visit. However, their resignation during our inspection reflected our concerns that management of the service continued to be a challenge.

Despite recent management changes, everyone we spoke to told us the atmosphere at Beaumont House was more positive. There was a shared focus on the needs of the people being supported.

Communication had improved. People, families and staff were being encouraged to speak out, though further work was needed by the provider to ensure everyone felt able to speak openly.

The provider had strengthened the monitoring of the service, learnt from mistakes and acted when needed to promote safety and good quality care.

The provider had taken effective action to address our previous concerns around safety. Staff managed risk well and worked as a team to keep people safe. In particular, the provider had significantly improved the administration of medicine. Staff worked openly with outside agencies to safeguard people.

There were enough safely recruited staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. The provider continued to tackle recruitment and retention issues and had started to see a reduction in agency staffing.

Staff knew people well and understood their needs and preferences. The provider had responded to previous concerns about staff knowledge and had focused on developing the specialist skills required in the care of people with more complex needs. Senior staff provided care staff with effective guidance and support. Risk assessments and care plans were being amended to ensure they reflected people’s needs more fully.

Staff worked in partnership with other agencies to promote peoples’ health and wellbeing.

There was an improved understanding about the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). 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.

People and families spoken with told us staff were caring and had remained committed through all the changes at the service. Staff were passionate about ensuring people remained independent and in control of their service.

More information is in Detailed Findings below

Rating at last inspection and update:

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published18 January 2019) and there was a breach of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection

Inspection areas



Updated 26 February 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 26 February 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 26 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 26 February 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 26 February 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.