CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Beechwood Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found safe care overall but inconsistent PPE use and an out-of-date infection policy.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 1 and 9 September 2021. Inspectors checked concerns about safeguarding, staff recruitment, risk management and management oversight. They also checked infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found no evidence to support the specific concerns that prompted the inspection. They found enough staff, safe recruitment systems, risk assessments and safeguarding processes. People were treated with dignity and respect.
There were shortfalls in infection control. Not all staff used PPE correctly, and the infection control policy did not reflect current government guidance. The home was asked to improve these areas. Quality assurance systems were in place but needed to be more measurable and timely.
The home was inspected but not rated because this was a targeted inspection. The previous overall rating was Good, published in March 2020, but this inspection did not review all areas needed to change that rating.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Care was delivered calmly and without rushing.
“There were enough staff to meet people's care needs.” from the report
Risk management
People's risks were assessed and reviewed. Care plans explained the measures staff should follow to keep people safe.
“Risk assessments were reviewed to ensure they reflected current needs.” from the report
Respectful care
Inspectors found that care met people's needs and preferences. Staff supported people to be independent where possible.
“Care was delivered to meet people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff had safeguarding training and understood what to do if someone might be at risk of harm.
“Staff had received training in how to keep people safe and described the actions they would take where people were at risk of harm.” from the report
PPE was not always used correctly
needs fixingNot all staff used PPE correctly. The manager took immediate action, but inspectors recommended making infection prevention practice consistent and understood by everyone.
“Not all staff were always using PPE correctly, the manager took immediate action to address this.” from the report
Infection policy was out of date
needs fixingThe infection prevention and control policy did not accurately reflect current government guidance. It was updated on the inspection day.
“The policy did not accurately reflect current government guidance.” from the report
Improvement tracking needed strengthening
needs fixingQuality assurance systems and an improvement plan were in place, but actions were not yet consistently measurable or completed promptly.
“The provider had recognised this needed further development to ensure actions were measurable and completed in a timely way.” from the report
One agency induction was not evidenced
minorAgency staff received a basic induction, but the home could not show evidence of induction for one agency staff member used recently.
“Induction could not be evidenced for one agency staff member used recently.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every member of staff uses PPE correctly and consistently?
- 02When was the infection prevention and control policy last reviewed, and how do you keep it aligned with current guidance?
- 03How do you measure improvement actions and check they are completed on time?
- 04How do you record and check the induction of agency staff before they work in the home?
- 05What safeguarding concerns or incidents have occurred since this inspection, and what changes followed?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns under Safe and Well-led, including infection control; it did not assess all five key questions, and the previous Good ratings were not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 October 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.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found major improvements since the previous Inadequate rating, with a few minor issues still being worked on.
Inspectors visited on 15 and 24 January 2020. They spoke with six people, five relatives, ten staff members and two health professionals. They observed care and moving and handling, and reviewed care, medicines, staffing, safety and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found detailed care plans, safer medicines systems, improved infection control, trained staff and kind, respectful care. People had activities, support with health appointments and help to maintain their independence.
This was a major improvement from the previous Inadequate rating, published in July 2019. The home had previously breached six regulations. At this inspection, inspectors found enough improvement for the breaches to end, and the home was no longer in Special Measures.
Detailed care planning
Care plans and risk assessments gave staff clear guidance about people's needs. Records were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Care plans and risk assessments accurately detailed people's needs.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff supported people with privacy, dignity and independence, including during personal care and meals.
“Staff treated people with respect and promoted their dignity.” from the report
Improved leadership
The provider used audits and action plans to track improvements. The management team was visible and worked with health professionals.
“The provider had implemented a detailed action plan to drive improvements in the service.” from the report
Activities and social support
People had activities linked to their interests, one-to-one time and support to access the wider community.
“People were supported to access activities in line with their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Better staff training
Staff had more training, supervision and competency checks to help them meet people's needs.
“The provider had a comprehensive training matrix in place to identify when staff were due for refresher training.” from the report
Minor medicines issues
minorInspectors found some minor problems with medicines practice. These were addressed during the inspection, and the report says there was no impact on people.
“We identified some minor medicines issues, which were addressed during the inspection.” from the report
More involvement in care planning
minorRecords showed some joint work with people about their care, but inspectors said this needed to be developed further.
“Care records showed some collaborative working to include people in their care planning. Further work was needed to develop this.” from the report
- 01How are you checking that the improved medicines systems remain accurate and safe?
- 02How will you involve my relative more fully in planning and reviewing their care?
- 03How will staffing levels change if more people move into the home?
- 04How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when people's needs change?
- 05What activities and one-to-one support would be available for my relative's interests and communication needs?
This was a follow-up inspection after the previous Inadequate rating, with an unannounced first day and an announced second day, and inspectors reviewed all five areas of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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.
Every inspection of Beechwood Nursing Home
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 February 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
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.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.