CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Methodist Homes

Beechville

653 Chorley New Road, Lostock, Bolton, BL6 4AG

Goodpublished 7 February 2024, 2 years ago

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

The five questions inspectors ask

Safe?: Good; Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. They found suitable staffing, safe recruitment, safe medicines management and effective infection control.
Effective?: Good; This question was not rated in this inspection report.
Caring?: Good; This question was not rated in this inspection report, although people told inspectors they were well treated and respected.
Responsive?: Good; This question was not rated in this inspection report, although inspectors found care plans covered areas such as nutrition, mobility and personal care.
Well-led?: Good; Inspectors found an open culture, regular meetings, quality checks and systems for learning and improvement. Management cover had been maintained while the provider recruited a new registered manager.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2024

Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and good oversight, while a permanent registered manager was still being recruited.

This was an unannounced inspection on 17 and 18 January 2024. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training records, audits and other documents.

The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were sufficient and infection control was effective.

People and relatives described kind and respectful care. Care plans included important information about people's needs, and staff worked with other professionals when needed. The provider had systems for complaints, quality checks and learning from incidents.

There was no registered manager in post at the inspection. Area managers and a deputy manager had provided permanent management cover, and recruitment of a new registered manager was nearly complete.

What inspectors praised

Safe care
Safeguarding systems, risk assessments and staff training helped protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.
“People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Suitable staffing
Inspectors found enough staff and safe recruitment checks. Staff showed knowledge of people's needs and a caring attitude.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean, and staff followed infection prevention and control procedures.
“The home was clean throughout, and we observed staff actively cleaning the premises during the inspection.” from the report
Good oversight
The provider used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the service and identify learning.
“The provider had a clear management structure that monitored the quality of care to drive improvements in service delivery.” from the report

What inspectors were concerned about

Registered manager vacancy
minor
There was no registered manager in post when inspectors visited. The provider was recruiting, and interviews were planned shortly after the inspection.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report

Questions to ask them, based on this report

01Has a new registered manager now been appointed, and who will be responsible for the home until then?
02How are care plans for nutrition, mobility and personal care reviewed when people's needs change?
03How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient on every household and shift?
04How often are medicines audits and staff medicines competency checks completed?
05What feedback and complaints have people and relatives recently raised, and what changes followed?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the report does not give new ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 2024 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 Beechville

3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

February 2024Goodcurrent rating
Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Beechville →
February 2021Inspected but not rated
Safe: Inspected but not rated
We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk
March 2018Goodstayed Good
Safe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read this report on cqc.org.uk
October 2015Good
Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read this report on cqc.org.uk
January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
Read this report on cqc.org.uk
September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
Read this report on cqc.org.uk
December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 December 2010.

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 care How PrimeCarers works

Same provider

Other services run by Methodist Homes

68 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.