CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Beechcare Incorporating the Peter Gidney Neurological Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, detailed risk assessments and safe medicines and infection control arrangements. Accidents and incidents were investigated and lessons were shared.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and knew how to support people's complex health needs. People received help with eating, drinking, healthcare, rehabilitation and communication.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were involved in decisions and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported independence and adapted communication to people's needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and there was a range of group and individual activities. Some people and relatives wanted more activities outside the home.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective audits, regular handovers and an open culture. A new manager was approachable and making improvements, but was not yet registered and the application was still being assessed.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Beechcare Incorporating the Peter Gidney Neurological Centre was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but food choices and activities outside the home could improve.
Inspectors visited without warning on 31 January and 3 February 2023. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, detailed risk assessments, suitable training and care that respected people's choices, dignity and independence.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and had breached staffing requirements. At this inspection, inspectors found the improvements were enough for the breach to be resolved. The overall rating changed to Good.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed safely, including checks of employment history, references and DBS records.
“There were enough staff deployed to meet peoples' needs.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Risk assessments and care plans were clear, detailed and regularly updated. They included information about complex health needs and people's personal choices.
“Risk assessments were clear, comprehensive and up to date.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were involved in their care and staff supported their dignity, privacy and independence. Inspectors saw respectful interactions.
“People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was protected.” from the report
Specialist support
The home supported people with complex neurological and nursing needs. Staff received additional training and worked with health professionals, including physiotherapists, dieticians and speech and language therapists.
“Additional training had been arranged for staff, to meet people's specific needs, for example, Parkinson's disease, epilepsy or diabetes.” from the report
Improved leadership
The new manager was described as approachable and supportive. Inspectors found regular audits, action plans and evidence that improvements were being followed through.
“The provider had a robust quality monitoring process.” from the report
Food quality and choice
needs fixingFeedback about the food was mixed. Some people found it basic or lacking variety, and inspectors found that not all food preferences were respected.
“However, not all preferences were respected.” from the report
Limited activities outside the home
minorThere were group and individual activities inside the home, but some people and relatives wanted more activities outside it.
“Some people and their relatives told us they would like to see more activities outside the service.” from the report
Manager registration pending
minorThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. A new manager had applied to register, and the application was still being assessed.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure each person's food likes, dislikes, allergies and dietary needs are followed every day?
- 02What improvements have been made to the flavour, variety and personalisation of meals since the inspection?
- 03What activities are available outside the home, and how do you support people who want to take part?
- 04Has the manager's application to register been completed, and who is legally responsible for the home while it is being assessed?
- 05How do you make sure staffing levels remain suitable for people with complex neurological and nursing needs?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises, care provided and infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 2023 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, November 2021
Beechcare Incorporating the Peter Gidney Neurological Centre is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but staffing and records were not reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 September 2021. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, audits and other documents.
The home provided nursing or personal care for 59 people. Some people had complex health needs and some lived with dementia. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, infection control was being followed and staff knew people well.
However, there were not always enough staff available at the right times. People sometimes waited a long time for help, which affected their care, dignity and wellbeing. Records did not always show that planned care had been delivered, and activities were limited for some people.
All five areas were rated Requires Improvement: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. New management had started several changes, but inspectors said it was too soon to know whether these improvements would last.
Risk management
People had detailed risk assessments and guidance. Staff understood people's individual risks and how to reduce them.
“People had comprehensive risk assessments and guidelines in place to help reduce and mitigate potential risks.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines records were complete, staff were trained and medicines audits were carried out. Inspectors observed medicines being given in line with people's needs and preferences.
“Medicines were managed safely and in line with best practice guidance.” from the report
Kind staff
Staff were described as caring and positive when they had time to provide support. They explained care and helped people make choices.
“We observed staff were kind during their interactions with people and feedback from people included the staff were "nice".” from the report
Complaints handled
People, relatives and staff felt able to raise concerns. The manager followed the complaints process when investigating and responding.
“People, their relatives and staff all felt able to raise concerns and that these would be addressed.” from the report
Staffing and response times
seriousStaff were not always available in sufficient numbers or deployed effectively. People sometimes waited for help, and call bells rang for several minutes.
“The provider failed to effectively deploy sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Care records
needs fixingDaily records did not always match the care set out in care plans. This meant the provider could not be sure that all planned care had been delivered.
“Daily notes did not always contain the detail to provide full oversight of the care being delivered.” from the report
Activities and social contact
needs fixingFeedback about activities was mixed, with most feedback being negative. The activities plan showed that some people could wait over two months for one-to-one engagement.
“We reviewed the activities planner which showed it would take over two months for each person to receive one to one engagement.” from the report
Consent records
needs fixingPeople were supported to make choices, but mental capacity assessments did not cover each specific decision as required by guidance.
“However, the assessment process did not assess for each specific decision in line with guidance.” from the report
Dignity during delays
needs fixingDelays in care meant that people did not always receive timely support that protected their dignity.
“There were instances where people had to wait to have their needs met such as waiting for soiled clothes to be changed.” from the report
- 01How many staff are planned for each shift, and how often are shifts below the home's staffing levels?
- 02What are the current call bell response times, and how are delays being monitored?
- 03How do you check that care recorded in daily notes matches each person's care plan, including repositioning?
- 04How often can each person now receive one-to-one activities and meaningful engagement?
- 05What changes have been made to mental capacity assessments for specific decisions?
This was an unannounced first inspection of the newly registered care home and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 2021 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 Beechcare Incorporating the Peter Gidney Neurological Centre
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Beechcare Incorporating the Peter Gidney Neurological Centre →
- November 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Beechcare Incorporating the Peter Gidney Neurological Centre →
- June 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 June 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.