Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home

Beaumont Court Care Home

Peter Shore Court, Beaumont Square, London, E1 4NA

Goodpublished 11 December 2019, 6 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors found risk assessments, staff guidance and monitoring for falls and distressed behaviour. They found no evidence that people were at increased risk of injury from these issues, and were assured about infection prevention and control.
Effective?
Good
Staff worked with GPs, occupational therapists and other professionals when people's health or needs changed. Referrals were made when needed, and advice was put into practice.
Caring?
Good
This was not assessed during the targeted inspection.
Responsive?
Good
This was not assessed during the targeted inspection.
Well-led?
Good
The manager reviewed incidents and safeguarding concerns through monthly clinical governance reports. Staff received supervision, and managers carried out unannounced night checks.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, August 2023

Beaumont Court Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found sensible risk management and no evidence of increased harm, while the previous Good rating remained in place.

This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 12 July 2023. It followed an increase in notifications about falls and altercations. One inspector reviewed care plans, risk assessments, incident records, staffing, supervision and quality checks, and spoke with staff and a health and social care professional.

Inspectors found suitable risk plans and staff who understood how to support people at risk of falls or distress. They found no evidence that people were at increased risk of injury from these issues. Staff made referrals when people's needs changed and worked with health and social care professionals.

The home was also found to have suitable infection prevention arrangements. The inspection was targeted, so it did not review every part of the service. The service was inspected but not rated, and its previous overall Good rating remained unchanged.

What inspectors praised

  • Risk management

    Care plans included information about risks, and staff could explain how they reduced those risks. Risk assessments were reviewed monthly.

    “There was detailed information about the risks and guidance for staff to follow to keep them safe, with risk assessments reviewed monthly.” from the report

  • Working with professionals

    Staff made timely referrals and worked with health and social care professionals when people's health or behaviour changed.

    “The staff team worked closely with a range of health and social care professionals to help people manage their health and wellbeing” from the report

  • Management oversight

    Managers reviewed incidents for patterns and used this learning to support staff. They also set up a falls workshop after an increase in unwitnessed falls.

    “These helped to identify any trends or themes within the home.” from the report

  • Infection control

    Inspectors were assured that infection prevention arrangements covered visitors, residents, personal protective equipment, outbreaks and the home's environment.

    “We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Some care records needed more detail

    needs fixing

    The manager said more specific information for one person was still being added to their care records. Inspectors saw the records were updated immediately, but this is worth checking if your relative has changing needs.

    “Where more specific information was needed for a person, the registered manager acknowledged this was still in process and their care records were updated immediately.” from the report

  • Inspection followed increased incidents

    needs fixing

    The visit was prompted by more notifications about falls and altercations. Inspectors did not find evidence of increased risk of harm during this inspection, but families should ask how these incidents are monitored now.

    “The inspection was prompted in part by an increase in notifications from the provider in relation to incidents related to falls and altercations between people who used the service.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How many falls or altercations have happened since the inspection, and what has been learned from them?
  2. 02What changes resulted from the falls workshop and the managers' unannounced night checks?
  3. 03Have all care plans now been updated with the specific information inspectors said was still being added?
  4. 04How are sensor mats, welfare checks and other enhanced monitoring recorded and checked?
  5. 05How will you keep families informed if an incident happens or a person's needs change?

This was a targeted inspection of specific parts of Safe, Effective and Well-led, plus infection prevention and control; it did not assess the full key questions and did not review Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 August 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Beaumont Court Care Home

2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. August 2023Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Beaumont Court Care Home →

  2. February 2022Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. November 2020Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. December 2019Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. December 2018Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. April 2018

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 April 2018.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Nearby

Other care homes near London

All in Tower Hamlets

Rosewood House

London, E1 · 0.3 km
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 2 years agocare home

Toby Lodge

London, E1 · 0.5 km
Good
Residential
Rated 8 years agocare home

Approach Lodge

London, E2 · 1.3 km
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home