Archived: Beaconsfield Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care at the service.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

There was a lack of regular engagement with people and their representatives to focus on supporting people to thrive, develop skills and have new experiences. This placed people at risk of experiencing social isolation and not developing skills to aid their independent living and pursue their interests. One person told us, “They don’t do any activities, I would like to play table tennis.” Staff told us there were not enough time to support people regularly with activities.

There were no staff allocated to support people specifically with activities , no activity schedule and we did not observe any activities taking place within or organised by the provider outside of the service during our 2 on-site visits. The manager told us there was not an activities timetable in place. They told us, “We are encouraging people to go out, and staff are taking people out more. We are encouraging people to go to Church, Library, etc.”

We reviewed people’s record of support notes which did not identify many activities had taken place for people. For example, 1 person had 1, 1-hour activity recorded in a 1-month period. This was recorded as a “general activity.” We reviewed another person’s activities for the month of September 2025. For 1 person 12 activities were recorded in the month of September. However, these consisted of sitting in the lounge sleeping, sitting in the garden, sitting in the lounge and 2 general activities in their room. A third person’s activities were described as, general activity sitting in the hallway or corridor talking to themselves. There were no service led activities. We found the same concerns at the last inspection. Care plans did evidence people’s choices and preferences for their daily routines.

The provider had given us assurances at our last inspection they would look at putting activities in place. However, these were still not evident at this inspection and people did not receive care that met their needs and reflected their preferences.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People had access to GP’s and hospital appointments. However, people were not registered with dentists, the manager told us this was because of a lack of available NHS dentists. Staff had not completed training to support their understanding of the Equality Act and barriers to care for autistic people and people who had learning disabilities had not been explored.

People were supported to attend their mental health appointments when required.

The provider manager told us no one using the service required information in accessible formats that were tailored to individual needs, they told us they could provide accessible formats if this was required. People’s communication needs and preferences were recorded in their care plans.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Relatives told us they were not asked for ideas how the service could be improved. Feeback from people was mixed, some people felt they could collaborate and make suggestions when their care plans were reviewed, other people told us they did not know anything about their care plans. One person told us they did not know when their appointments were. They told us, “Sometimes I worry they don’t have enough information.”

The manager told us they had a quarterly feedback survey around food and care. They told us about a change to the menu which was introduced as a result of feedback from people. They also told us about further improvements they were planning to make. They said, “Moving forward we want to complete ‘what you said and what we did’ information to allow people to understand what we are doing to make the changes they want or need and share this information in our team meetings to ensure staff understand what people want or need.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Some people were reluctant to visit dentists and opticians. They had not been supported to explore concerns relating to availability of these services or to remove some of the barriers to enable people to access provision tailored to their needs. Some relatives told us they were not always kept informed of these barriers to enable them to respond appropriately.Following the inspection the provider told us people have access to an optician who visits the service.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Some staff were out of date for Equality and Diversity training and some staff had not attended equality and diversity training at all. This training would have supported them to better identify and respond to the discrimination and inequality people using the service might experience in accessing care, treatment and support.

Staff told us they treat everyone the same and the service was free from discrimination. However, this perspective failed to recognise or address the inequalities experienced by individuals as a result of their protected characteristics.

The manager told us, “Due to a more multi-cultural staff team, we are looking at alternative ideas and celebrations to promote inclusion and bring some enjoyment to the service and promote diversity.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People had end of life plans in place and had been consulted on how they wanted to be supported at the end of their life. Important people who they wanted involved were recorded in their plans.