Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Beechwood Care Home

Inadequatepublished 11 March 2026, 6 months ago

Rated Inadequate: inspectors found the home performing badly and the CQC has taken enforcement action.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, April 2023

Beechwood Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found major improvements, but medicine guidance still needed reviewing.

This was an unannounced, comprehensive follow-up inspection on 9 February 2023. Inspectors spoke with four people, 12 relatives and six staff. They observed care and checked care, medicine, monitoring and quality records.

The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with dignity, supported to eat and drink, and given care that reflected their needs.

The home had previously been rated Inadequate and was in Special Measures. Inspectors found enough improvement for it to be no longer in breach of regulations, no longer Inadequate and no longer in Special Measures. They recommended a review of some medicine guidance and records.

What inspectors praised
  • Safer care

    Risks were assessed and recorded, and accidents and incidents were reviewed so the home could learn from them.

    “People were safe. Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing were managed by staff with the relevant skills and knowledge to meet their needs.” from the report
  • More consistent staffing

    The use of agency care staff had reduced substantially. People and relatives noticed that more regular staff were now working in the home.

    “The registered manager had made significant improvements in reducing the use of agency care staff.” from the report
  • Better staff training

    Training levels had risen and staff received more regular supervision. Nursing staff also had clinical leadership that had not been in place previously.

    “Staff training figures had improved to 98 percent since our last inspection were less than 50 percent of staff were trained.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care plans were more detailed and updated when people's needs changed. Staff knew people well and supported their choices and interests.

    “Care plans were improved with more detail and were updated when changes had occurred.” from the report
  • Improved management

    Audits and quality checks covered the concerns found at the previous inspection. Relatives and residents had more opportunities to share their views.

    “The quality assurance processes in place had improved.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicine guidance

    needs fixing

    Medicines were managed safely, but guidance and records for creams, patches, variable doses and covert medicines were not always clear. Inspectors made a recommendation for these to be reviewed.

    “We recommend that the provider reviews the guidance and records kept for creams and patches” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are creams and patches recorded and checked now?
  2. 02How do staff confirm the correct dose when a medicine has a variable dose?
  3. 03What guidance is followed when a medicine is given covertly, hidden in food or drink?
  4. 04How do you maintain the improved level of regular staff and limit agency use?
  5. 05How are relatives involved in the monthly care plan reviews and in checking that agreed actions have been completed?

This was an unannounced comprehensive follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, with infection prevention and control also checked under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 April 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, March 2023

Beechwood Care Home was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious failures in safety, medicines, staffing and oversight.

Inspectors visited on 25, 30 and 31 May 2022 without announcing the visits. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, checked the home and reviewed care, medicine, staffing and monitoring records.

They found people were at risk of avoidable harm. Risk assessments and monitoring records were incomplete or out of date. Medicines were not always stored, recorded or given safely, and some people received incorrect doses. Support with food and drink was also not reliable.

Inspectors found poor communication and said people were not always treated with dignity, respect or kindness. Staff were often unfamiliar with people's needs, partly because of high agency staff use. Training, supervision, care planning and contact with health professionals were not consistently effective.

The overall rating fell from Requires Improvement to Inadequate. The home was placed in special measures, which means the CQC will keep it under review and usually re-inspect within six months to check for significant improvement.

What inspectors praised
  • People felt safe

    Although inspectors found serious safety failures, the people and relatives who gave feedback said they felt safe living at the home.

    “People and relatives said they felt safe living at the service.” from the report
  • Open management response

    The management team accepted the concerns during the inspection and began some remedial action.

    “The management team were open and honest throughout the inspection.” from the report
  • Suitable layout

    Inspectors found the home was generally designed to meet people's needs, with communal and outdoor areas.

    “The environment within the home was appropriately designed to meet people's needs.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Unsafe medicines

    serious

    Medicine records were inaccurate and instructions were not always followed. Inspectors found examples of overdose and one person went without pain medicine for seven days.

    “We found examples where people had received an overdose of their medication due to inaccurate records.” from the report
  • Risks were not controlled

    serious

    Risk assessments were missing or out of date, and monitoring of repositioning and fluid intake was inconsistent. This meant inspectors could not be assured that people were receiving suitable care.

    “Monitoring records had not been consistently completed to evidence that people's needs were being met with regards to repositioning and fluid intake.” from the report
  • Staffing and training

    serious

    The home relied heavily on agency staff who were not always familiar with people's needs. Some agency staff had no induction, while staff training and supervision were incomplete.

    “Agency staff told us they had commenced their first shift at the service without any induction being provided.” from the report
  • Food and drink support

    serious

    Some people did not receive enough fluids or appropriate nutritional support. Weight loss was not always followed up quickly with professional help.

    “People had not been consistently weighed to monitor their health. Where weight loss had occurred, timely action had not been taken to seek support from professionals.” from the report
  • Dignity and choice

    serious

    Staff did not always communicate with people before providing support or offer choices. Inspectors also found that privacy, dignity and independence were not consistently respected.

    “Communication between people and staff was poor. No conversations took place before support was provided.” from the report
  • Weak management checks

    serious

    Audits and quality checks did not reliably identify or resolve problems. Some issues had been marked as complete even though they were still outstanding.

    “Some shortfalls had been signed off as completed. However, they remained outstanding at the time of this inspection.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to medicine storage, records, administration and auditing since the inspection?
  2. 02How many agency staff are currently being used, and how are they inducted and told about each person's risks and care needs?
  3. 03How are you now recording people's fluid intake, weight, repositioning and skin condition, and who checks these records?
  4. 04What evidence can you show that staff training and one-to-one supervision are now up to date?
  5. 05What improvement actions have been completed since the report, and what has the latest monitoring by the CQC or local authority found?

This unannounced inspection covered all five key questions and included infection prevention and control, medicines, staffing, care records, observations and feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals; it was prompted partly by concerns about care quality and staffing levels. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Beechwood Care Home

7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.

  1. April 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Inadequate
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Beechwood Care Home →

  2. March 2023Inadequatedown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at Beechwood Care Home →

  3. July 2020Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. October 2019Inadequatedown from Good
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. April 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. April 2016Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. October 2015Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. September 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. August 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. June 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. March 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. July 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  13. April 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  14. March 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  15. February 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  16. October 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  17. September 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  18. September 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  19. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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.”
Claire A., about Carla M.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
Beatrice N., about Rosemary H.
See live-in carers near North YorkshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.