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 felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, risks were reviewed, staffing was adjusted for appointments and activities, and medicines were checked after each round.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had completed the training identified as necessary, including specialist training. People were supported with food, drink, health appointments and their legal rights.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They supported people to communicate, make choices and do as much as possible for themselves.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report says this area improved to Outstanding. Support was tailored to people's interests, communication needs, relationships, activities and personal goals.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers and staff worked as a team. Audits, staff supervision, training checks and feedback systems were used to monitor and improve the home.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with Responsive care improving to Outstanding.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 17 October 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, staff, the manager and relatives. They reviewed care records, risk assessments, medicines records, recruitment files, training data and quality checks.
They found people were safe and supported by enough trained staff. Medicines were managed well, the home was clean, and staff understood people's health and communication needs. People were treated with respect and encouraged to make choices and remain independent.
Care was planned around each person. Inspectors found particularly strong support for activities, relationships, communication and involvement in decisions. Responsive care improved from Good at the last inspection to Outstanding.
All five overall ratings were Good. The home had been rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 8 February 2017. The report says the home was consistently managed and well-led.
Personalised communication
People had accessible communication plans, including pictures and individual signing guidance. This helped them understand information and take part in decisions.
“Management and staff had found innovative ways to communicate with people which worked well and engaged them in decision making.” from the report
Choice and independence
People helped choose meals and activities and were involved in decisions about the home, including staff interviews. Staff encouraged people to do things for themselves.
“People were encouraged to be on interview panels for new staff, this allowed them to have their say about the staff who would be a big part of their lives.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. Checks after each medicines round meant errors could be identified quickly.
“This ensured that if there were any errors they were picked up immediately.” from the report
Strong oversight
The management team used regular audits and checks across the service. Staff training, medicines, care quality and risks were monitored.
“Quality monitoring and audits were robust and monitored every aspect of the service.” from the report
End of life planning was still developing
minorEnd of life plans had been started, but the manager was still working to make them more complete and detailed. Relatives were being contacted to discuss people's wishes.
“the registered manager was in the process of developing this to be more holistic with more detail.” from the report
- 01How detailed are each person's current end of life plans, and have relatives been involved in agreeing them?
- 02How do you adjust staffing when people have appointments, outings or activities?
- 03How would you communicate with my relative if they do not use speech, and can we see an example of the communication plan?
- 04How are medicines checked after each medicines round, and how are any errors dealt with?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and choosing activities?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall and question ratings were Good, while Responsive improved to Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 December 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with some management and record-keeping issues being addressed.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 12 January 2017. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, incident records and other documents.
The home supported up to eight people with autism and learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, safe medicines arrangements and good safeguarding. People had access to food, activities and healthcare. Staff understood people's communication methods and supported their choices, privacy and independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that staff supervision had not always happened regularly, handover records were sometimes incomplete and recent management changes had unsettled staff. The home had already started work to improve these areas.
Safe support
Staff assessed risks and supported people to take part in activities in the least restrictive way. Inspectors found enough staff and safe medicines systems.
“People were able to lead active and fulfilled lives because there was a culture of well-managed, positive risk taking.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received training relevant to people's needs, including autism and epilepsy awareness. They understood people's individual communication methods and strengths.
“During our visit staff demonstrated that they were knowledgeable about the people they were supporting and that they had the required skills to provide a good level of support.” from the report
Caring relationships
Inspectors saw warm, positive interactions. Staff took time to understand people and supported them to make decisions and remain independent.
“We observed positive interactions throughout our visit between staff and people who used the service.” from the report
Personalised activities
People had individual activity plans based on their interests and abilities. Staff changed plans when people's wishes or circumstances changed.
“Each person had an activities planner that was presented in visual format so that they could see what activities were planned each day.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits and feedback to identify and make improvements. The manager and provider were acting on the shortfalls inspectors found.
“There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingStaff had not always received regular supervision during the previous year. A supervision schedule had been introduced and progress was being made.
“Staff had not always received regular supervision during the 12 months prior to our inspection.” from the report
Handover records
needs fixingSome shift handover records were incomplete. This could mean important information was not passed between shifts, although action was taken during the inspection.
“We saw that the handover documentation had not always been completed, meaning that important information may not have been handed over from one shift to another.” from the report
Management stability
minorTwo management changes in recent months had unsettled staff. The provider was supporting the home during the transition.
“There had been two changes in the management of the service in recent months and staff told us this had been unsettling.” from the report
- 01How often do staff now receive supervision, and how do you check that every staff member receives it?
- 02How are shift handovers recorded and checked so that important information is not missed?
- 03What management changes have happened since the inspection, and who is currently responsible for the home?
- 04How are people's individual communication methods, routines and activity preferences kept up to date?
- 05How are relatives involved in reviews of their family member's care and support?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 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
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 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.
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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottingham
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 £1,270 a week. 73 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.