CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beech House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; the home had improved and was no longer in Special Measures, but safety and leadership still needed strengthening.
This was an unannounced planned inspection over three days. The inspector met all six residents, spoke with six staff and three family members, and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Inadequate and placed in Special Measures. Fire safety, staffing, care plans, medicines and safeguarding had improved, and the home was no longer breaching regulations.
Inspectors rated Effective, Caring and Responsive as Good. Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement because the new systems still needed to be embedded and shown to last.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and involvement in decisions.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care plans recorded how people liked to be supported. The home provided activities, community access and communication in audio formats.
“People's care plans detailed information about how they liked to be supported.” from the report
Medicines and safeguarding
Inspectors found medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff understood how to report abuse and had safeguarding training.
“Medicines were managed safely and in line with good practice guidance.” from the report
Improved staffing and fire arrangements
Night staffing levels had increased. Fire equipment, evacuation plans and staff training were in place.
“Appropriate fire safety equipment was available to support people to evacuate in an emergency.” from the report
Safety systems still bedding in
needs fixingInspectors said the improvements were new and needed to be shown to last. Some people declined to leave during fire evacuation tests, after which the evacuation plans were updated.
“Improvements had been made but systems were new and still being embedded, we will check that the systems have been sustained at our next inspection.” from the report
Management systems need to stay effective
needs fixingGovernance had improved, but inspectors identified further development needed while the new systems were embedded and sustained.
“However, there remained some areas for further development whilst embedding and sustaining the improvements made so far.” from the report
- 01What checks now make sure the new fire safety and evacuation arrangements continue to work?
- 02What person-specific guidance is in place if someone refuses to leave during an evacuation?
- 03How will you show that care plans and risk assessments stay up to date when people's needs change?
- 04What audits are currently being used to check safety and care quality, and what actions have followed them?
- 05How can my relative take part in care planning, monthly meetings and decisions about their daily support?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, following the previous Inadequate rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 November 2019 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.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Beech House was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures because inspectors found serious safety and management failures.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 February 2019. Two inspectors visited, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files, training records and management information.
The main risks were unsafe fire arrangements, no suitable evacuation equipment for people with mobility difficulties, and too few staff at night. Care records did not always describe health needs properly or stay up to date. Mental Capacity Act processes were not always followed when decisions were made for people.
Inspectors also found positive things. Staff treated people kindly, medicines were given safely, the home was clean, and people had food, drink and access to health professionals. Relatives said their loved ones were happy. However, the systems used to check and improve the service had failed to identify or fix important risks.
The overall rating was Inadequate. Safe and Well-led were rated Inadequate. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Requires Improvement. The home was placed in special measures, which meant CQC would keep it under review and normally inspect again within six months.
Kind staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people kindly, respectfully and with dignity. Staff understood people's needs, preferences and important belongings.
“Staff members were kind and caring in all of their interactions with people who lived at the home.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received the medicines they needed. Staff were trained, checked for competency and subject to regular medicines management checks.
“Medicines were administered safely and people received the medicines they needed to keep them safe and well.” from the report
Clean home
The home was clean, tidy and well maintained. Infection control arrangements and checks on the water system were in place.
“We looked around the home and saw that it was clean and tidy.” from the report
Support and activities
People were supported by health and social care professionals, attended a day centre where they chose to do so, and had opportunities for activities and events.
“The provider worked closely with a range of health and social care agencies to ensure people's equality needs were met.” from the report
Fire evacuation
seriousThe home had a Stay Put policy and no emergency equipment to help people with mobility difficulties leave the building. Inspectors considered this an immediate safety risk.
“The provider's fire safety arrangements were unsafe as they did not ensure people were evacuated in the event of a fire.” from the report
Night staffing
seriousStaffing levels at night had not been based on people's needs and were too low to keep people safe.
“Night time staffing levels were insufficient to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Legal consent
seriousThe provider did not always complete capacity assessments or best interest decisions before using restrictions or putting DoLS arrangements in place.
“There was no evidence that the provider had followed the MCA legislation in respect of these areas of support.” from the report
Care records
seriousSome health needs and changing risks were not fully recorded or updated. Inspectors said this could lead to inappropriate or unsafe care.
“This placed people at risk of inappropriate and unsafe care.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits and meetings had identified incomplete care documentation, but similar problems remained. The management systems did not reliably identify or reduce risks.
“Neither of these mechanisms were effective in identifying and mitigating risks to people's health, safety and welfare.” from the report
Limited resident involvement
needs fixingRelatives could attend meetings, but there were few meaningful or accessible ways for people living at the home to give their views, particularly given their visual impairment.
“There was no evidence that people who lived at the home participated in these meetings or had a meeting of their own.” from the report
- 01What emergency evacuation equipment is now available, and how would each person be evacuated safely during a fire?
- 02How have night staffing levels been changed and how are they now matched to people's needs?
- 03Have Mental Capacity Act assessments and best interest decisions been completed for DoLS, bed rails and protective equipment?
- 04How are care plans checked and updated when a person's health condition or risks change?
- 05How can people living at the home, including people with visual impairment, give feedback or make a complaint independently?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole care home and all five key questions, including the premises and care provided; it was the first inspection since the service registered. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 July 2019 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 House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.
- November 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2019InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 June 2017.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Birmingham
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.