CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Beechwood Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some prescribed creams were left unsecured, and infection control procedures were not always followed. Staff recruitment checks, safeguarding arrangements and many risk controls were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff had training and support, healthcare professionals were involved, and people received suitable food and drinks.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw respectful relationships, choices being offered, and privacy and dignity being protected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's needs, call bells were answered promptly, and people were supported to choose their routines and activities. Complaints information was available.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager and systems for meetings, handovers, audits and improvement work. Managers recognised that staffing, records and refurbishment still needed attention.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicines storage and infection control were not always safe, so Safe was rated Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 31 October and 2 November 2018. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked records, medicines, recruitment and quality monitoring.
People generally received effective, kind and responsive care. Inspectors found that staff supported people's choices, privacy, dignity, nutrition, healthcare and activities. People and relatives were mostly positive about the care.
There were safety concerns. Prescribed creams had been left unsecured, infection control practices were not always followed, and the home relied on agency staff because of vacancies. The overall rating stayed Good, but Safe fell from Good to Requires Improvement compared with February 2016.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were positive about staff. Inspectors saw staff build friendly relationships, offer choices and protect people's privacy and dignity.
“People we spoke with were positive and complimentary about the staff who supported them.” from the report
Food and drinks
People had menu choices and alternatives. Staff encouraged eating and drinking, and the chef understood people's special dietary needs.
“People told us they liked the food provided for them and confirmed they had a choice of menu.” from the report
Prompt support
Staff responded promptly when people asked for help. Activities were varied and could be changed to reflect what people wanted to do.
“We saw staff responded in a timely way when people required support and assistance.” from the report
Management and teamwork
Managers used meetings, handovers and audits to share information and plan improvements. Healthcare professionals described a good working relationship with staff.
“A daily heads of departments meeting took place involving management, lead care, catering, housekeeping, maintenance and reception staff.” from the report
Unsecured prescribed creams
seriousA container of prescribed creams was left in a bathroom for what was believed to be more than two hours. This could have put people, including those living with dementia, at risk.
“We did however see a plastic container holding one person's prescribed creams left in a bathroom.” from the report
Infection control
seriousInspectors saw a used continence pad carried without a bag, followed by poor hand hygiene. Hoist slings were also not always stored consistently, creating a possible cross-infection risk.
“These practices exposed people to potential risks of cross infection.” from the report
Agency staffing
needs fixingRecent staff shortages meant the home relied on agency workers. Relatives said agency staff were friendly but did not always know the individual person well.
“People who lived as the home as well as visitors and staff members told us their main concern at the home was the need to use agency members of staff due to staff shortages.” from the report
Refurbishment and records
needs fixingSome parts of the building needed redecoration, and inspectors said it was not always clear what action had been taken when water temperatures were too high. The manager also could not evidence everything that had happened, including some complaints.
“It was not however always evident what action had taken place when water was found to be too hot to prevent people from the risk of scalding.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make sure prescribed creams and other medicines are never left unsecured?
- 02How do you now check hand hygiene, disposal of continence items and storage of hoist slings?
- 03How many permanent care staff are currently in post, and how much agency cover is still being used?
- 04What refurbishment work has been completed since the inspection, and what remains outstanding?
- 05How do you record the action taken when water temperatures are too high?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care, with all five key questions assessed; one unit was closed for refurbishment during the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 2018 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 Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Beechwood Residential Care Home →
- April 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Worcestershire
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 £1,260 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.