CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beech Cliffe
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by risk assessments, emergency plans, suitable staffing and safe medicine storage. Inspectors found that some as-needed medicine instructions and records needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, supervision and support. People were helped with food, health appointments, communication and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and responsive. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and supported to keep relationships and follow their cultural or religious preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People had activities, support to maintain relationships and clear information about complaints. However, care files were difficult to follow, included duplicated information and were not person-centred.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, clear staff roles and systems for checking quality and acting on issues. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views.
What inspectors found, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 30 November 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, looked around the home, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness, supported to make choices and helped to take part in activities and maintain relationships.
The home remained Good, the same rating as at the previous inspection in December 2015. The report says it met all relevant fundamental standards. Inspectors did identify improvements needed in some medicine records and in how care files were organised.
Keeping people safe
Risk assessments, staffing arrangements and emergency plans were in place. Staff understood people's needs and how to support independence safely.
“People were kept safe by robust risk assessments that identified any risks they faced and measures to keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff respond promptly, understand how people communicated and provide emotional support. People were treated with dignity and respect.
“We observed staff treated people with dignity and respect during the Inspection.” from the report
Useful activities
People took part in varied activities, including daily living skills, exercise and leisure. They were supported to choose activities and try new things.
“We saw people had a busy weekly programme of activities which including regular scheduled activities as well as ad hoc sessions where people choose what they wanted to do during those times.” from the report
Open management
The home had quality checks, action plans and ways for people, relatives and staff to give feedback. Inspectors found that issues identified were acted on.
“Effective systems to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided were in place.” from the report
As-needed medicine records
needs fixingSome instructions for as-needed medicine did not explain clearly when it should be given. Staff also did not record when it was given if it worked.
“Staff also did not record when PRN medication was given if it was effective.” from the report
Medicine room temperature checks
minorThe medicine room temperature was checked once a day, rather than being evidenced across the full 24-hour period.
“However, this was checked once a day and did not evidence the temperature over a 24 hour period.” from the report
Care files were hard to follow
needs fixingCare files contained duplicated information and were not person-centred. The provider agreed to review them and develop clearer files with people's involvement.
“However, the care files were very difficult to follow, had some information duplicated and were not person centred.” from the report
Staff consistency
needs fixingSome relatives raised concerns about a lack of consistency in the staff supporting people. They said this sometimes affected people.
“However, some relative's raised the issue of lack of consistency in staff providing support, saying that at times this had an impact on people.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the instructions and recording for as-needed medicines since the inspection?
- 02How do you now monitor medicine room temperatures throughout the day?
- 03Have the care files been rewritten so they are clear, person-centred and agreed with each person?
- 04How do you provide consistency in the staff supporting each person?
- 05How are people's views and relatives' feedback used to improve the home?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five ratings, which all remained Good from the previous inspection in December 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 2018 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.
Every inspection of Beech Cliffe
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.