CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beech Trees
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- The home had not shown that actions from fire and electrical safety assessments were completed. Staff kept people safe in other respects, including safeguarding, medicines and infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had personalised care plans, health action plans and hospital passports. Staff had relevant training and supported people with healthcare, food and lawful decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People received kind and compassionate care. Staff respected privacy, dignity, equality and independence, and people and families were involved in care planning.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- People did not receive all their commissioned one-to-one support hours. This restricted their activities and choices about how they spent their time.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management arrangements were changing and quality systems had not identified or resolved the fire and electrical safety actions. Staff and relatives said communication and feedback were generally good.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Beech Trees was Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care but safety checks and one-to-one support were not reliable.
Inspectors visited without notice on 14 December 2021. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, risk assessments, medicines and infection control.
People were treated kindly and with dignity. Staff understood people's needs, medicines were managed safely and people were supported with healthcare, food and communication. Relatives generally said their family members were safe, happy and well supported.
There were important shortfalls. The home could not show that actions from fire and electrical safety assessments had been completed. Staff shortages meant some commissioned one-to-one support hours were not provided, which limited people's activities and choices. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, with the same rating for Safe, Responsive and Well-led.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and familiar with individual needs. Staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who knew them well and treated them as equals.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and reviewed safely. Staff had training and practice checks before administering medicines.
“Medicines audits were carried out regularly and indicated that medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Good health support
People had annual health checks and were supported to see healthcare professionals when needed. Health action plans and hospital passports were in place.
“All the people living at the home had an annual health check and appointments were made with healthcare professionals” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about cleaning, protective equipment, testing, vaccinations and arrangements for preventing and managing infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Fire and electrical safety
seriousThe home could not provide evidence that actions identified in fire and electrical safety assessments had been completed. Inspectors said this created an increased risk that people could be harmed.
“The provider was not able to provide evidence that these actions had been completed.” from the report
Missed one-to-one support
seriousThere were not enough staff to provide people's commissioned one-to-one support hours. This restricted activities, choices and how people spent their time.
“The absence of one-to-one support hours meant people's choices about how they spent their time and which activities they took part in were restricted.” from the report
Staff vacancies and agency use
needs fixingVacancies meant agency staff were used regularly. The provider reduced the impact by using regular agency staff where possible, but staffing levels still affected one-to-one support.
“There were vacancies on the staff team at the time of our inspection which meant agency staff were used regularly.” from the report
Incomplete communication training
needs fixingSome staff had training in Makaton, but others had not. The manager said this training would be provided when staffing resources allowed.
“Some staff had received training in this form of communication, but others had not.” from the report
Management checks missed safety actions
needs fixingThe home's audits covered areas such as health and safety, but they had not identified or corrected the outstanding fire and electrical safety actions.
“These systems had not always been effective as they had not identified or rectified the outstanding actions in relation to fire and electrical safety.” from the report
- 01Have all actions from the November 2020 fire risk assessment and November 2017 electrical report now been completed, and can we see the evidence?
- 02How many one-to-one support hours is each person commissioned to receive, and how are these hours currently provided?
- 03How do you cover staff vacancies and agency shifts while making sure people receive their planned activities?
- 04When will all staff be trained in Makaton or each person's preferred communication methods?
- 05What changes have been made to the home's audits and management checks since this inspection?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that covered all five key questions and included infection prevention and control checks; it was the first inspection under the current provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 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 Trees
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2020.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“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.