CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beechwood
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were assessed and staff knew how to support them safely. However, medicines records were not always complete, and a damaged chair had bodily fluid contamination because it could not be cleaned effectively.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs, choices and goals were assessed and reviewed. Staff had relevant training, worked with healthcare professionals and supported people to eat well and access healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful care. Staff promoted privacy, dignity, independence and involvement in decisions, using communication aids where needed.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included people's needs, preferences, communication and goals. People were supported with activities, community access, relationships and oral care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Relatives and staff described open and supportive leadership. However, audits had not identified the damaged chair, and systems had not ensured all agency staff had the training needed for specific care.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines records, equipment checks and agency staff training needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 27 October, 3 November and 8 November 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were supported to make choices, live as independently as possible, access healthcare and take part in activities. Relatives described kind and respectful care.
Inspectors found some problems. Medicines records did not always include important information. A damaged chair could not be cleaned properly, and checks had not found it. One agency staff member did not have training for people's specific needs. The home took immediate action when these issues were raised.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found consistently good care at the time of this inspection. The rating was unchanged from the previous Good rating, published in April 2019.
Promoting independence
Staff supported people to make everyday choices and work towards greater independence. Inspectors saw people supported with activities such as laundry, cooking and sorting clothes.
“Staff supported people to live as independently as possible and have a level of autonomy over their lives.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's preferences, communication methods, health needs, social history and goals. Relatives and healthcare professionals were involved where appropriate.
“People's care and support was planned to meet their needs and respect preferences.” from the report
Access to activities and healthcare
People were supported to attend activities, use facilities such as hydrotherapy and access healthcare professionals, including dietetic and physiotherapy support.
“People were able to access the local community and were supported by staff to do so.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingSeveral medicines records were missing details such as how medicines should be taken, allergies and directions for use. Inspectors said this created a risk of medicines being given incorrectly, although they found no negative impact on people.
“Medication administration records (MARs) were not consistently completed in line with the provider's policy.” from the report
Damaged chair
needs fixingA damaged communal chair could not be cleaned properly and was still contaminated with bodily fluids after cleaning. Staff removed it immediately when inspectors raised the issue.
“We identified a chair was in damaged condition which meant it was not possible to effectively clean this as it regularly became contaminated with bodily fluids.” from the report
Agency staff training
needs fixingOne agency staff member was supporting a person independently without the relevant training for that person's specific needs. The provider addressed this during the inspection.
“The provider did not have the systems in place to ensure all agency staff had completed the relevant training.” from the report
Checks did not find problems
minorRegular equipment and cleanliness checks had not identified the damaged chair. Inspectors said the home's audits were not always effective at finding issues.
“Monthly 'Equipment and Cleanliness Checklists' carried out in the six months preceding our inspection failed to identify the damaged chair.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every medicines record includes the route, allergies and directions for use?
- 02What checks are now in place to make sure damaged furniture or equipment is found and removed promptly?
- 03How do you confirm that agency staff have the right training before supporting people independently?
- 04What action did you take after inspectors found the medicines, chair and agency training problems, and how have you checked that the changes worked?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, and it also examined concerns received about the culture of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 January 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, April 2019
Beechwood was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some minor improvement work identified.
This was a planned, comprehensive inspection over two days. One inspector observed care, spoke with staff and a visiting professional, reviewed records and later spoke with two relatives. People could not communicate directly with inspectors, so their care and interactions were observed.
Inspectors found people were safe and that risks, staffing, medicines and infection control were managed well. Staff were trained and supported, and people were helped to access healthcare, eat and drink well, and make choices.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were encouraged to be independent and had a wide range of activities. Care was personalised, and families were involved in reviews and feedback.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published in September 2016.
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicine records were complete and medicines were given safely.
“People received their medicines on time as medicine administration records (MAR) were fully completed with no gaps.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions between staff and people. Staff protected privacy and encouraged independence in everyday activities.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised activities
People took part in activities suited to their interests, including swimming, walks, sports and trips out. Care plans recorded personal preferences.
“A wide variety of activities helped people live fulfilled lives.” from the report
Good family involvement
Families were involved in care reviews and were regularly asked for their views. Staff also helped people express choices through observation, pictures and communication methods.
“People were involved in planning care where possible. People's families were also involved in this process.” from the report
Some records needed completing
minorAn internal check found that not all mental capacity assessments had been recorded. Inspectors said this was corrected on the day of the inspection.
“A recent internal audit completed by the registered manager identified that not all mental capacity assessments had been recorded.” from the report
Bathroom maintenance
needs fixingOne bathroom had moisture damage and needed work. Repairs had been identified and were booked for the following May.
“We observed that one of the bathrooms required work to it due to moisture damage.” from the report
Training was not fully up to date
minorInspectors said staff were mostly, rather than completely, up to date with mandatory training. The home's training system tracked when refresher training was due.
“Staff were mostly up to date with their mandatory training.” from the report
- 01How do you record and review people's mental capacity assessments now that inspectors found some records were initially incomplete?
- 02Has the moisture damage in the bathroom been repaired, and what checks are now in place to prevent further problems?
- 03Which staff training was overdue at the inspection, and has all mandatory refresher training now been completed?
- 04How do you find out when a person who cannot speak is unhappy, in pain or wants to make a choice?
- 05How will you involve our relative and our family in care reviews, activities and decisions?
This was a planned fully comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the care home premises and care provided were both looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 April 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 Beechwood
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 June 2014.
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.