CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beechwood House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicine management was not fully robust. Inspectors also found incomplete risk information, no personal emergency evacuation plans, and weaknesses in staff recruitment records.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and supervision, worked with healthcare professionals and supported people's health and dietary needs. Care plans did not always record people's needs and outcomes clearly.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. They supported privacy, dignity, independence and people's relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People were supported to make choices, keep in touch with relatives and take part in activities. Care plan reviews were not always carried out with people or their families.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Staff described good leadership and communication. However, quality checks had not identified the medicine problems found during the inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicines and some safety and legal processes needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. One inspector spoke with five people living at the home, four relatives and 11 staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The overall rating was Good. Inspectors found kind and respectful care, trained staff, good support with healthcare, activities and relationships, and positive leadership. People and relatives gave mainly positive feedback.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Medicine records and procedures were not always safe or complete. Inspectors also found gaps in risk records, emergency evacuation plans, recruitment records and the use of the Mental Capacity Act and DoLS. Safe had fallen from Good at the previous inspection in 2017. The other four ratings remained Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance, checking people were well and treating them with dignity. Feedback from people and relatives was positive.
“People were supported by staff that were caring and treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff had access to induction, training, specialist training and supervision. Inspectors found they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.
“People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.” from the report
Clean environment
Cleaning and infection control were managed well. Staff had protective equipment and followed infection control procedures.
“The home was clean and free from malodours.” from the report
Good support and leadership
The home helped people maintain relationships, attend activities and access healthcare. Staff said management was approachable and communication was good.
“Staff worked together with a range of healthcare professionals to achieve positive outcomes for people.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousMedicine records did not include enough guidance. PRN medicines were not properly monitored, creams did not have body maps, and medicines were left on tables while people ate.
“No one receiving medicines had a care plan or medicine profile in place.” from the report
Mental capacity safeguards
seriousSome people who could not make decisions did not have the required DoLS applications. Staff did not always understand how to make decisions in people's best interests.
“This meant the provider was depriving them of their liberty.” from the report
Emergency and personal risk plans
needs fixingRisk information was not always up to date or detailed enough. No one had a personal emergency evacuation plan, and there was no formal business continuity plan.
“No one living at the home had a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP).” from the report
Care plan involvement
minorPeople and families were not always involved in reviewing care plans. The plans did not consistently record specific outcomes or current care needs.
“Staff had not identified specific outcomes for people or regularly reviewed peoples care needs with them.” from the report
- 01What medicine profiles, PRN guidance and body maps are now in place for each person?
- 02How are medicine storage temperatures and the risks from paraffin-based creams now checked?
- 03Have personal emergency evacuation plans and a business continuity plan been completed?
- 04How do you assess mental capacity, make best-interest decisions and apply for DoLS when needed?
- 05How will the person and their family be involved in reviewing care plans and end of life plans?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the overall service and all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 2020 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, June 2017
Beechwood House Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with effective care improving since the last inspection.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 7 June 2017. They spoke with eight people living at the home, two visitors and three staff. They observed care and checked care plans, staff files, training records and medicine records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff were kind, and they could make choices about their daily lives. Staffing levels were described as adequate and medicines were administered safely.
The home remained Good overall, as it had been at the inspection in June 2015. The Effective rating improved to Good because people had more food choices and staff had the skills needed to support them.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and call bells were answered promptly. Inspectors found enough staff to provide care in a relaxed and unhurried way.
“There were adequate numbers of staff to provide care to people in a relaxed and unhurried manner.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness, respect and dignity. Inspectors saw warm conversations, laughter and discreet support with personal care.
“People told us staff were always kind and respectful towards them.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in decisions about their care and had plans describing their routines and preferences. Staff adjusted support to each person.
“Everyone had a care plan that was personal to them.” from the report
Good activities and choice
People could make choices about their daily lives and join activities such as quizzes, games and flower arranging.
“There are some good quizzes and games that help to keep your brain active.” from the report
Listening and improvement
The provider responded to suggestions from people, including making doors easier to open and offering more food choices.
“The provider listened to people's views and put suggestions into practice where appropriate.” from the report
No nursing care
minorThe home could not provide nursing care. If someone needed more care than the staff could provide, the home supported them to move to a more suitable setting.
“The home was not able to offer nursing care” from the report
People were reluctant to complain
minorThe provider said people were often reluctant to make complaints and planned to rename complaint forms as feedback forms to encourage more views.
“The provider had a clear complaints procedure but found people were often reluctant to make a complaint.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative if they began to need nursing care?
- 02How many staff are usually on duty during the day and at night, and how do you make sure call bells are answered promptly?
- 03How will you keep my relative's care plan updated as their needs and preferences change?
- 04What food choices and activities would be available for my relative?
- 05How can my relative or our family give feedback or raise a complaint?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions; the home was also compared with its previous inspection in June 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 June 2017 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 House Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.