Beckoning House Limited

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 7 August 2025 (assessment visit 21 July 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   –No rating No rating

   Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

   The service was in breach of regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and to fit and proper persons employed. The registered manager had not completed the appropriate checks to ensure that staff were recruited safely into the service. Staff did not always assess risks to a person’s health and safety or mitigate them where identified. Risk assessments were incomplete and did not include risks we identified during our assessment. The person using the service did not always have a detailed, accurate and up to date care plan to guide safe practice.

2. Effective

   –No rating No rating

   Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

   This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

3. Caring

   GGood Good

   Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

   This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

4. Responsive

   –No rating No rating

   Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

   This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

   The service was in breach of regulation in relation to person-centred care. A person’s care plan and risk assessment were not person-centred.

5. Well-led

   –No rating No rating

   Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

   This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

   During our assessment of this key question, we identified a breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. This was because we found concerns around the effectiveness of the provider's quality assurance and oversight systems and processes.