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.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks, there were enough staff, and medicines were generally managed safely. Inspectors found two medicines-record discrepancies, one missing water-sampling record, one glove-use problem and some recruitment-record discrepancies.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training, skills and support needed to meet people's needs. People had personalised care plans, suitable food and access to health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were encouraged to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care and communication were tailored to people's preferences, needs and ways of expressing themselves. People were supported with activities, community visits and their interests, and concerns could be raised with the manager.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, regular staff communication and checks on care quality. The manager used surveys, audits and incident information to identify improvements.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few records and infection-control issues corrected or needing review.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 and 16 January 2018. One inspector visited the home, spoke with one person, the manager, relatives and staff, and contacted community professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines, staff records, accident records, complaints and safety documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff, safe medicines practice, kind care, personalised support and good management oversight.
There were some minor shortfalls. Inspectors found two medicines-record discrepancies, one missed water-sampling record, a staff member who did not change gloves between tasks, and some recruitment-record gaps. These were addressed immediately or after the inspection.
Kind, individual care
Staff knew people well and provided support based on their preferences, needs and communication. People were treated with dignity and encouraged to be independent.
“Staff provided care that was individual and centred on each person to ensure people felt they mattered.” from the report
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on each shift, with staff skills matched to people's needs. Recruitment checks were in place to help ensure suitable staff were employed.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff on each shift.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to continue their usual activities, go out regularly and take part in interests such as exercise, sport and day services.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities like exercises, sports sessions and day services.” from the report
Positive management
The home had quality checks, staff meetings and a positive atmosphere. Staff said they felt supported and able to suggest improvements.
“The registered manager promoted a positive culture at the service.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingTwo discrepancies were found in medicine records. The manager addressed these with staff and corrected them immediately.
“We found two discrepancies in the medicine records. The registered manager addressed it with staff and rectified it immediately.” from the report
Water safety record
needs fixingInspectors could not see a record of regular water sampling. The manager said this would be added to the risk assessment for monitoring and testing.
“The only item we were unable to see was a record of a regular water sampling.” from the report
Infection control
minorA staff member was seen not changing gloves between tasks. The manager addressed this with staff immediately.
“We observed staff on one occasion not removing their gloves between tasks.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingSome discrepancies were found in employment histories and references. The manager corrected these and supplied enough information after the inspection.
“We identified some discrepancies with employment history and references.” from the report
Accessible information
minorInformation about communication needs was held in different parts of the care files. The manager said it would be reviewed and kept together in line with the required standard.
“The care files had some information already in different places.” from the report
- 01How do you now check medicine records after the two discrepancies found during this inspection?
- 02What system is now in place for regular water sampling and recording the results?
- 03How do you check that staff change gloves between different tasks?
- 04How do you make sure employment histories and references are complete before staff start work?
- 05Have communication needs now been brought together clearly in each person's care file?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; six people were living there, and inspectors reviewed two people's care records. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 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 House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Wokingham
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 71 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.