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.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in safety, record keeping, fire action and complaints handling, although staff were caring and improvements had begun.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 22 August and 1 September 2023. Three inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff. They checked four people's care plans, medicines and daily records, along with management and quality records.
The home was not always safe or responsive, and its management systems had not reliably found and fixed problems. Inspectors found gaps in risk assessments, medicines records, nutrition and fluid monitoring, care plans, complaint records and fire safety follow-up. Some environmental cleaning issues were fixed promptly during the inspection.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The safe, responsive and well-led areas were rated Requires Improvement. Effective and caring were not inspected as part of this focused inspection, so this report does not give current ratings for them.
The provider accepted the concerns and took some immediate action. CQC required an action plan and will monitor progress with the provider and local authority.
Kind and compassionate staff
People expressed satisfaction with the care. Staff said morale was good and they enjoyed going to work.
“People expressed satisfaction with the care provided and said staff treated people with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Immediate action on some issues
The provider and manager acted promptly when some infection control concerns were identified. Staffing levels and management oversight were also strengthened after the inspection.
“Once concerns were identified the provider and manager took immediate action to address them.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff had completed safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns. The service had systems to protect people from abuse and harm.
“Staff had completed their online safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns” from the report
Fire safety follow-up
seriousFire safety actions identified in January 2023 had not all been completed promptly, despite the seriousness of the concerns. This created a safety risk.
“At the inspection we found sufficient and prompt action to rectify all the fire safety actions had not been taken despite the seriousness of the concerns.” from the report
Medicines and risk records
seriousRisk assessments lacked detail and medicines records did not always match stock balances. Some medicine administration entries were unsigned or did not have the required signatures.
“Medicine administration records did not follow best practice guidelines. For example, handwritten entries were not always signed by 2 members of staff, and some were not signed at all.” from the report
Nutrition and fluid monitoring
seriousFood and drink records were not consistently totalled against people's daily targets. Inspectors said this increased the risk of malnutrition and dehydration.
“Food and fluid intake records showed nutrition and fluid intakes were not being totalled to ensure people's individual daily nutrition and hydration targets were met.” from the report
Complaints and care plans
needs fixingSome complaints were not investigated or answered without delay. Care plans did not always explain people's current needs or how to care for them safely.
“Complaints made by people and relatives were not always responded to and investigated without delay.” from the report
Learning from incidents
seriousIncidents and repeated falls were not consistently analysed, and care plans and risk assessments were not always updated afterwards. This increased the risk of harm happening again.
“The provider had failed to review people's care plans and risk assessments after each incident to reduce the likelihood of reoccurrence.” from the report
- 01What has been done to complete every fire safety action identified in January 2023, and how is completion being checked?
- 02How do you now check that medicine stock balances and medicine administration records match and are signed correctly?
- 03How are food and fluid records totalled each day and checked against each person's nutrition and hydration targets?
- 04How are repeated falls and other incidents reviewed, and how are care plans and risk assessments updated afterwards?
- 05How will you make sure complaints are investigated and answered without delay?
This was a focused inspection prompted by concerns about management and safety; Safe, Responsive and Well-led were inspected, while Effective and Caring were not, and the report did not examine the circumstances of the death that prompted the inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 October 2023 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 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements and safe visiting procedures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 21 January 2022. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found the home had arrangements for safe visits, testing, personal protective equipment and cleaning. Staff had infection control training, and the home was clean with no bad smells.
The home was meeting the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals. The service was inspected but not rated, so this visit does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control
Staff used appropriate PPE and had access to hand sanitiser. They had completed relevant infection control and COVID-19 training.
“Staff had completed training in infection control, COVID-19 and donning and doffing PPE.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and free from bad smells. Cleaning products and schedules were available, with infection control audits in place.
“The home was clean and there were no malodours.” from the report
Safe visiting
Relatives could visit using arrangements that followed government guidance, including a negative lateral flow test before entry.
“The provider had a process in place to enable relatives to visit their family members in a safe way and in line with government guidance.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
People using the service and staff took part in testing. Inspectors also found the home met the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals.
“The service was meeting the requirement to ensure non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are relatives still required to show a negative lateral flow test before visiting?
- 02How is the home currently managing COVID-19 testing for residents and staff?
- 03How do you check that staff continue to use PPE correctly?
- 04What staffing pressures are there now, and what measures are in place if staff are absent?
- 05When was the most recent infection control audit, and were any actions needed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 2022 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
4 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- October 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 June 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
97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham
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. 80 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.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.