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 by safeguarding processes, risk guidance, enough staff and safe recruitment. However, monitoring of catheter care and medicine stock records was not always complete or accurate.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff had training and worked with health professionals, although some mental capacity decisions had not initially been clearly documented.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make choices and maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised around people’s preferences and communication needs. Activities were limited while the activities coordinator was unavailable, and some people had not yet discussed their end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Staff and managers understood their roles and created a positive culture. However, audits and records did not always identify or document problems, actions and lessons learned.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, but the home’s leadership and record-keeping require improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 August, 4 October and 9 October 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were treated with kindness and dignity. Staff understood people’s needs, medicines were usually given as prescribed, and people had access to food, drink and health professionals.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Audits did not always identify problems, and lessons learned or actions taken were not always recorded. Inspectors also found limited activities while the activities coordinator was unavailable. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement under the previous provider, published in March 2022.
Kind and respectful staff
People spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed respectful interactions and staff supported people’s choices, privacy and independence.
“People were well treated and supported by staff who respected their equality and diversity.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people’s likes, dislikes, choices and interests. Staff adapted support to people’s needs on the day.
“People received personalised care to meet their needs and preferences.” from the report
Staffing and training
People were supported by enough staff, and recruitment checks were completed. Staff received induction and training to help meet people’s needs.
“People were supported by enough staff who were safely recruited to work at the home.” from the report
Access to healthcare
The home worked with health and social care professionals. People could access services including GPs, district nurses, dentists and other specialists.
“Staff worked with health and social care professionals to ensure people received effective care.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingAudits did not always find problems with medicine stock, repositioning records, catheter monitoring or care records. Actions and lessons learned were also not consistently recorded.
“The provider's auditing systems were not always effective at identify improvements.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingInspectors found gaps in records about catheter care and repositioning. The provider introduced or changed recording systems after these issues were raised.
“We found some gaps in people's electronic repositioning records.” from the report
Limited activities
minorActivities were limited while the activities coordinator was unavailable. People and staff said that daily individual activities were not enough.
“Whilst activities were limited, we did observe staff spent time with people and interacted with them whilst delivering care.” from the report
Future wishes not fully discussed
needs fixingSome people said they had not had the opportunity to discuss their end of life choices or preferences. The manager was reviewing this with people and families.
“People we spoke with felt they had not had the opportunity to discuss their end of life care choices or preferences.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to make sure medicine stock counts match the physical stock?
- 02How are catheter care and repositioning records checked for completeness and accuracy?
- 03What activities are currently available, and who is responsible for providing them?
- 04Have future wishes and end of life preferences now been discussed and recorded for every person?
- 05How do managers record lessons learned and make sure actions from incidents and audits are completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection of the newly registered provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 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.
Every inspection of The Beeches
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 March 2022.
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 Stoke-on-Trent
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 £1,190 a week. 93 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“She's shown compassion, patience and a level of understanding that no other carer has given.”
“She maintained a great environment for mum both with the tidiness and cleanliness of the house and Mum and with her caring and understanding attitude.”
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.