You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 December 2018

This inspection took place on 20 and 21 November 2018 and was unannounced. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made and the service is now rated as ‘Good’.

Beech Hill Grange Nursing Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. A maximum of 74 people can live at Beech Hill Grange and at the time of our visit 73 people were living there.

We last inspected Beech Hill Grange Nursing Home on 20 June 2017 when we rated the service as 'Requires Improvement' in all the key questions. This meant the overall rating of the service was 'Requires Improvement'. We found that the provider was not always meeting the legal requirements set out by the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and were rated as Requires Improvement. The provider was failing to meet regulation 17 of the HSCA which related to the governance systems had not all been effective, and had not ensured that people would receive a consistently safe service that met their needs. After our inspection in June 2017 the provider provided us with an action plan outlining what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the service is now rated as ‘Good’ overall.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The provider had systems in place to check and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw that where areas required improvement action had been taken in response.

The home was well-led by an experienced management team who were enthusiastic about the service and committed to providing good standards. Staff received appropriate training and support, understood their roles and responsibilities and had confidence in the management team.

People felt safe living at the home and were protected from the risk of abuse. The provider had systems in place to minimise the risk of abuse and staff had a good knowledge and understanding of the signs of abuse and who to report concerns to.

Staff were available to meet people’s individual needs and demonstrated good knowledge about people living at the home.

People were protected from environmental risks within the home. People received good healthcare and were referred to external healthcare professionals when a need was identified to maintain their health.

Staff were caring and treated people with respect. People were relaxed around staff. Staff showed us that they knew people’s likes, dislikes and interests.

Staff who gave people their prescribed medicines demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of how to do this safely.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff offered people choice and respected the decisions they made. Where restrictions on people had been identified, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations were in place to lawfully deprive people of their liberty for their own safety.

People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink enough and were positive about the quality of their meals. People were supported to take part in a range of activities in and outside of the home.

People knew how to raise concerns and felt confident they could raise any issues should the need arise and that action would be taken as a result.

The design and decoration of the premises promoted people's wellbeing and supported staff to use

equipment safely. The home was clean

Inspection areas



Updated 21 December 2018

The service was safe

People were protected from avoidable harm, abuse and

discrimination because staff had been trained and understood

the actions required to keep people safe.

Risks to people's health were identified and managed.

There were enough staff to meet people's individual needs and maintain their safety.

People received their medicines as prescribed and people were

protected from the risks of infection.



Updated 21 December 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training, guidance and support to

ensure they had the required skills and experience to meet

people's needs effectively.

Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They offered people choices and sought their consent.

People were offered a nutritionally balanced diet that met their individual preferences.

People were supported to maintain good health.



Updated 21 December 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

People did have the opportunity to practice their faith, express

their culture and sexuality in the ways they preferred.

People's individuality and diversity were respected by staff who ensured people's views and opinions were heard.



Updated 21 December 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s individual needs were met in a way they preferred

People were offered opportunities to engage in and experience different and

stimulating activities both inside and outside the home.

There was a complaints process in place that would ensure

concerns were identified, acted upon and rectified. People and

their relatives found the staff and management team open to




Updated 21 December 2018

The service was well led

There was a registered manager in post. The provider's quality assurance checks, together with feedback from people, staff, relatives and visitors to the home, were used

to identify where improvements were needed.

Staff received appropriate support, understood their roles and