CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Beeches
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm and risk assessments were in place. Medicines, staffing during the inspection, recruitment, equipment and infection control were found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, training and supervision. People received support with food, their dietary needs, healthcare and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were caring, kind and respectful. People were involved in daily decisions and supported to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised, and people took part in activities suited to their interests. Records did not include people's or families' preferences for end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular meetings, audits and systems for monitoring quality. Staff felt supported and inspectors found an open and positive culture.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with more work needed on end-of-life planning.
Inspectors visited the home on 1 and 2 May 2019. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, staff files, medicines and quality checks.
The home provided personal care for 13 adults. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed properly, and there were enough staff during the inspection. Staff were trained and supported, and people were helped with food, healthcare, activities and daily choices.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found good care overall and that legal requirements were met. They did identify that care records did not yet include people's wishes for a deterioration in health or the end of life.
Safety and medicines
Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm. Medicines were stored, given and checked safely.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people as individuals, respected their privacy and offered choices. People were supported to keep doing tasks for themselves.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's routines, abilities, preferences and communication needs. People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed.
“Peoples care records were person-centred and detailed. Care plans included information about people's daily routines” from the report
Activities and independence
People could take part in a wide range of activities and make choices about their daily lives.
“People were enabled to participate in a range of activities. This included, swimming and hydrotherapy, games, drama, arts and crafts, wheelchair dancing, cinema and meals out.” from the report
Staff support and oversight
New staff had an induction and mentoring. Staff received ongoing training and supervision, while regular audits and meetings helped monitor the service.
“There was an effective system of governance in place. A range of audits were completed at regular intervals by different members of the staff team” from the report
End-of-life plans
needs fixingThe care records reviewed did not contain people's or families' wishes about care if health deteriorated or at the end of life. The provider had recognised this and said further work was planned.
“None of the care records we reviewed contained any information from people or their families care preferences in the event of a deterioration in people's health or as people neared the end of their life.” from the report
Staffing confidence
minorSome staff said there were not always enough staff, although inspectors observed enough staff during the visit and found people's needs were answered promptly.
“Staff felt the home did not always have sufficient staff but told us they were aware the registered provider was constantly recruiting for staff.” from the report
- 01How do you now record each person's wishes if their health deteriorates or they approach the end of life?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough staff on every shift, including when staff are absent?
- 03What was the outcome of the new compliance audit scheduled for 14 May 2019?
- 04How will families be involved in reviewing care plans and end-of-life preferences?
- 05How do you keep staff training and supervision up to date?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC areas, including the premises and the personal care provided; all five ratings were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 May 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, November 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home did not have a registered manager and some records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 September 2016. One inspector spoke with three people using the service and three care staff. They observed care and mealtimes, checked records, and reviewed staffing, training, recruitment and management information.
The inspectors found that people felt safe and received kind, respectful care. Staff understood people's needs, preferences and communication styles. People had suitable care plans, access to healthcare, support with food and drink, and opportunities for activities, education, work and community visits.
The home had enough staff on duty and medicines were generally managed safely. Complaints and feedback were recorded and acted on. However, some medicine, nutrition, supervision and fire-drill records needed improvement.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report also says some aspects of the service were not well-led because there was no registered manager in post.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw compassionate interactions. Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy, choices and independence.
“We found that people received compassionate care from staff who were keen and who knew about people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, interests, communication needs and goals. People were supported to make choices and develop everyday living skills.
“Care plans were person centred and written in a clear print and pictorial format that people could easily understand.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs and support activities. Medicines were obtained, stored, administered and recorded safely overall.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs and medicines were managed safely so that people received them as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and independence
People could use on-site facilities, attend community activities and appointments, and take part in work, hobbies and household tasks.
“The focus of the service was to enable people to be as independent as possible and to enjoy their lives.” from the report
Listening to people
People and families were involved in care reviews. Complaints could be made in accessible formats, and records showed that issues were responded to.
“These were listened to and action was taken to address them.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe last registered manager had left and the replacement was not registered when inspectors visited. The report says CQC would follow this up with the provider.
“The service was without a registered manager. This is a requirement of their registration and will be followed up by CQC with the registered provider.” from the report
Fire drill records
needs fixingThe last recorded fire drill was more than a year before the inspection. The home said it would arrange another drill and carry them out regularly.
“Fire drills were part of the service's emergency plans, although we saw that the last recorded drill took place in August 2015.” from the report
Medication storage checks
minorMedicine fridge temperatures were not recorded every day, and room temperatures also needed daily checks. Staff were recording external creams on the wrong charts.
“We noted that the temperature of the medicine fridge was not consistently being recorded on a daily basis” from the report
Supervision records
minorStaff supervision took place, but some records lacked detail, dates or signatures. The home said this was being addressed through further training.
“However, we found that the supervision sessions were not always well recorded as they lacked detail of what had been discussed or decided” from the report
- 01Is there now a registered manager in post, and if so, when was their registration completed?
- 02When was the next fire drill carried out after this inspection, and how regularly have drills been recorded since?
- 03How are daily fluid targets recorded now, and what action is taken when someone drinks less than planned?
- 04How are medicine fridge and room temperatures checked and recorded each day?
- 05How does the home make sure supervision records include the discussion, decisions, dates and signatures?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the overall service, covering all five key questions and reviewing care, staffing, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 2016 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 The Beeches
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 December 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 Kirklees
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. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.