CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beech Grove
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Residents said they felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, effective safeguarding systems and regular checks of the building and equipment. Medicines were safely managed overall, but some related records needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable induction, training, supervision and skills to support people with complex mental health needs. One mental capacity assessment relating to medicines was missing, so CQC recommended that the home review its procedures.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors found staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Residents were involved in decisions, supported to be independent and helped to maintain their cultural and religious interests.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised around people's needs, preferences and communication. Residents were supported with activities, hobbies, relationships, complaints and access to family and friends.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure, regular audits and a culture where staff felt able to raise concerns. Leaders worked with health, social care and other local agencies.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but some medicines and mental-capacity records needed attention.
This was the first inspection since the home was registered. It was unannounced. One inspector and a medicines specialist spoke with five residents and seven staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Residents said they felt safe and happy. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good training, kind care and support for independence, activities and family contact.
There were some record-keeping gaps. One resident did not have a risk assessment for managing some medicines, and some guidance for medicines taken when needed referred to medicines no longer on the current record. One mental capacity assessment was also missing for medicines. The manager took immediate action on the medicines issues, and CQC recommended a review of mental capacity procedures.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to keep residents safe and meet their needs. Recruitment checks were also described as robust.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Residents were treated as individuals and involved in their care. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices.
“People were treated with kindness and as equals by the staff.” from the report
Personalised activities
Residents were supported to maintain hobbies, build skills, exercise and develop independence. The home also supported contact with family and friends.
“People were supported to access a range of personalised activities and encouraged to maintain hobbies and interests and explore new hobbies.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received a detailed induction, ongoing training, supervision and appraisals. Inspectors found they were competent and understood residents' needs.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled and carried out their roles effectively.” from the report
Active management
Leaders used audits, incident reviews and staff feedback to identify improvements. The home also shared learning across the provider's services.
“Quality assurance systems were in place and used effectively to monitor key aspects of the service.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingOne resident had no risk assessment for self-administering some medicines. Some guidance for medicines taken when needed referred to medicines no longer listed on the current medicines record.
“Medicines were safely managed but documentation needed reviewing to ensure it was accurate and reflected risk.” from the report
Mental capacity record
needs fixingA mental capacity assessment was missing for one resident in relation to medicines. CQC recommended that the home review how it applies the Mental Capacity Act.
“We found a mental capacity assessments (MCA) was not in place for one person in relation to medicines.” from the report
- 01Has the missing mental capacity assessment for medicines now been completed and reviewed?
- 02What risk assessment is now in place for residents who self-administer medicines?
- 03How do you check that 'when required' medicines guidance matches each person's current medicines record?
- 04How are residents involved in planning their care, activities and daily living tasks?
- 05How do residents and families raise concerns, and how do you show that actions have prevented problems happening again?
This was the first inspection after registration and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 August 2022 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 Grove
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 March 2021.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.