This comprehensive inspection took place on 9,10 and 16 October 2018 and was unannounced.

This was the first inspection since the provider took over the service from Gateway Housing Association and registered it with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 29 April 2018. The service was previously called Peter Shore Court and at the previous comprehensive inspection in November 2016 the service was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Peter Shore Court’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’.

Beaumont Court Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Beaumont Court accommodates 42 people in one building across two floors, with each person having their own bedroom and en-suite bathroom. There were also communal living and dining rooms, a main kitchen and access to a secure garden. At the time of the inspection the care home was supporting 41 people with physical health conditions and those living with dementia.

There was a manager in post at the time of our inspection and they had submitted their application to be a registered manager on 16 October 2018. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

At the time of the inspection the service was in a period of transition. A new manager was in post who was trying to create a settled environment. The provider was aware of the mixed feelings and differences in the morale of the staff team who were getting used to changes and new ways of working. The majority of staff feedback received was positive about the takeover and the direction the service was going in.

The provider had quality assurance processes in place to monitor the service. The provider acknowledged there were areas that needed improvement and the service was still a work in progress since they had taken over.

The provider did not meet the CQC registration requirements regarding the submission of notifications about serious incidents, for which they have a legal obligation to do so.

Risk assessments were in place to identify and manage areas of risk to people. However, information was not consistent throughout people’s care records as some assessments had not been updated. Risk assessments did not always provide staff with guidance on how to minimise risk.

Safeguarding investigations that had been carried out were not always recorded accurately or were clear about the response to the concerns and what the outcome was. Supporting documents relevant to the investigation were not always available or stored within the safeguarding log.

Although the provider used a dependency tool to assess staffing levels, we received mixed feedback about the staffing structure across the service with the changes that had been made since the takeover. Although more people were present in communal areas on the ground floor for the staff team to monitor throughout the day, we did observe times when staff were less visible on the first floor.

The service had a robust recruitment process and staff had the necessary checks to ensure they were suitable to work with people using the service.

People received their medicines safely from staff who had completed refresher training with a new pharmacy and had their competency assessed. Medicines records were completed and checked by staff on a regular basis to minimise medicines errors. However, some poor practice was observed in relation to medicines administration and recording.

Staff demo