- Care home
The Beeches Care Home
All Inspections
1 February 2022
During an inspection looking at part of the service
We found the following examples of good practice
The provider ensured current government guidelines in relation to COVID-19 were followed by staff and visitors to reduce the risk of infection to people living at the service. This included checks for visitors upon arrival.
People had individualised COVID-19 risk assessments and care plans which provided guidance for staff to follow so they knew how best to support people to reduce the risk of COVID-19 outbreaks.
People and staff took part in regular COVID-19 whole home testing. People and staff who tested positive followed national guidance and self-isolated for the required amount of time.
All staff working at the service were fully vaccinated.
Staff had received training in infection prevention and had access to personal protective equipment (PPE), such as masks, gloves and aprons, to mitigate the risk of the spread of infection. There were sufficient stocks available, and staff were seen to be wearing PPE appropriately.
The provider had reviewed and updated their practice and procedures following any changes to the national guidelines to reflect best practice.
31 July 2019
During a routine inspection
Beeches Care Home provides personal care and accommodation for up to 24 older people, over two floors. Communal areas include a quiet room, lounge, dining room and conservatory. On the day of our inspection there were 22 people living in the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found:
People received safe care and were protected against avoidable harm, neglect and discrimination. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and strategies were put in place to reduce the risks. There were sufficient numbers of staff who had been safely recruited to meet people’s needs.
Peoples medicines were safely managed, and systems were in place to control and prevent the spread of infection.
People’s care needs were assessed before they received a care package. Staff received an induction and ongoing training that enabled them to have the skills and knowledge to provide effective care.
People were supported to eat and drink enough. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and access healthcare services when required.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.
Care plans supported staff to provide personalised care. People were encouraged to take part in activities and interests of their choice. There was a complaints procedure in place and systems in place to deal with complaints effectively. The service provided appropriate end of life care to people.
The service continued to be well managed. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Actions were taken and improvements were made when required.
The service worked in partnership with outside agencies. Staff felt well supported and said the registered manager was open and approachable.
The last rating for this service was Good: (Published on 9 February 2017) Following this inspection the service remained Good overall.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
16 January 2017
During a routine inspection
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.
The inspection was undertaken as part of our routine re-inspection programme, to review the rating from the first comprehensive inspection completed on 15 October 2014.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People felt safe in the service. Safeguarding procedures had been followed and worked to minimise any risks to people’s health and safety. Staff were recruited using a robust process and numbers of staff were appropriate to meet people’s needs. Medicines were managed safely.
People were cared for by staff that had received appropriate induction and refresher training to enable them to perform their roles in the right way. People were enabled to have choice and control and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Where appropriate people living at the service had their freedom lawfully restricted under a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) authorisation. People received an appropriate dietary intake and were able to access healthcare professionals to maintain their health and well-being.
People were provided with person centred care and recognised by staff as being individuals. People told us that staff were always kind and caring and treated them with dignity and respect.
People were encouraged to take part in activities and interests of their choice. The registered manager attended to complaints and concerns in accordance with the formal complaints policy.
There were robust systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and make improvements when these were identified. The service had good leadership and that staff were positive in their desire to provide good quality care for people.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
15 October 2014
During a routine inspection
At our last inspection on 12 February 2014, we found that the provider had breached Regulations because they had not involved people within their care or ensured that they had care records that were representative of their care needs. We also found there were not effective systems in place to safeguard people or to ensure their safety through the provision of effective medicines systems. We found that the premises and environment was not always suitable for the people who lived at Beeches Care Homes and that the provider did not have robust processes in place in respect of staff recruitment and quality monitoring of service delivery. Following this inspection, the provider sent us an action plan in March 2014 to tell us the improvements they were going to make.
During our inspection on 15 October 2014, which was unannounced, we reviewed whether these actions had been completed. We found that suitable action had been taken to address the previous issues.
Beeches Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and support for 24 older people who may also have a dementia related condition. On the day of our visit, there were 20 people living in the home.
The previous registered manager had left the service at the time of this inspection and the provider had recruited a new manager, who had been in post for some months at the time of our visit. They have applied to become the registered manager for the service and their application is being processed. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People told us they felt safe and we found that the systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm were suitable. Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse correctly.
Some people who used the service did not have the ability to make decisions about aspects of their care and support. Staff understood the systems in place to protect people who could not make decisions and followed the legal requirements outlined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People received visitors throughout the day and we saw they were welcomed by staff. Relatives told us they could visit at any time.
People were supported to have their personal care needs met in a timely manner and staff always had a smile for people and a caring response. Staff understood people’s needs and how they wanted to be supported and were mindful of their privacy and dignity.
People could choose how to spend their day and enjoyed participating in activities, especially the music sessions.
Staff received on-going training to meet the needs of people using the service and could access additional training if required. They were encouraged to improve upon their skills and knowledge to better the lives of people using the service.
The provider had a robust recruitment process in place. Records we looked at confirmed that staff started work in the home after all recruitment checks had been satisfactorily completed. Staff we spoke with told us that they had not been offered employment until these checks had been confirmed.
People and their relatives knew who to speak to if they wanted to raise a concern. There were systems in place for responding to complaints.
12 February 2014
During an inspection looking at part of the service
People who used the service and relatives gave us positive feedback about their experience of the service.
People told us:-
'It's not too bad here. It ain't a bad place!'
'I don't have to wait long if I need something. It seems they have enough staff here.'
'The staff are very attentive and pleasant with it.'
'If I need something, they come pretty quickly.'
"Oh, it's lovely here ' they try their best.'
A relative told us, "The staff are wonderful and caring. They kept me informed. It's not a smart place but the care transcended that."
A recent survey which represented half of the people who lived at the home, showed that all respondents were satisfied with the care provided.
We found that not all people had been treated with dignity and respect. The provider needed to improve their management of medications, recruitment practice, induction training for staff, maintenance and layout of the home and systems for monitoring the quality of service and care provided. A review of care plans had fallen into arrears.
The home had not had a registered manager since February 2013. That had contributed to shortfalls we had identified.
30 August 2013
During a routine inspection
We spoke with two people who used the service and relatives of four other people who used the service. Everyone person we spoke with spoke positively about the home. A person who used the service told us, "Staff are exceedingly kind and considerate. The staff interchange well and I don't notice any difference. I'm able to spend my time as I choose and have lots to do." Relatives we spoke with described staff as being "compassionate" and "friendly". Two relatives felt that not enough staff were on duty, but only one felt that had impacted on the quality of care.
The home catered for people's social needs through scheduled activities like games and physical activity. However, not all people had benefited from activities that were person centred or stimulating. We found that people's care plans required review and more involvement from people and their relatives to make plans more person centred.
15 November 2012
During a routine inspection
We found that staff supported people appropriately and spoke to them politely. Staff encouraged and praised people when they assisted them with activities. People who used the service had been supported by skilled and experienced staff who understood their needs.
24 January 2012
During a routine inspection
The people we spoke to told us that they liked living at the home and they liked the staff. They said the food was lovely and they had two choices. They told us that staff respected their privacy and dignity when giving them personal care. They had their medication when they needed them.
The manager had people's meetings at the home to find out their views about how the staff were meeting their needs, and to find out if they had any concerns. Staff told us relatives were also encouraged to attend the meetings.
We observed staff interacting with people in a positive manner.