- Care home
Archived: Beech Tree Hall
Assessment report published 28 October 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 9 September to 29 September 2025. Beech Tree Hall is a care home providing support for younger people with a learning disability. We carried out this assessment due to the age of the rating and because we had received some concerns about staffing, and personal care.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
We found the provider was meeting the principles of Right support, right care, right culture. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. People lived in a clean environment. The provider was in the process of refurbishment to improve the service design. People were treated with respect and dignity. There were systems to investigate and learn from accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns.
The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. Beech Tree Hall accommodates up to 17 people in one adapted building that is divided into four flats. At the time of our site visit 13 people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size.
Risks associated with people’s care were not always managed to keep people safe. We found personal emergency evacuation plans were not kept updated in emergency grab bags. We also found some safety concerns with the premises, such as some radiators were not covered to protect people from burns and some window restrictors were not in place putting people at potential risk of falls from height.
Staff know people well and understood their needs and preferences. Family members were involved in developing care plans, although reviews of people’s needs had not always taken place in a timely way. People were supported to stay healthy and to access external healthcare services.
People were supported to take part in a range of activities in the community. People received personalised care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. People’s human rights were respected.
Some recent changes to the management team had highlighted some processes and systems which required further development. Therefore, systems in place for monitoring and improving the quality of the service needed to be embedded in to practice to show they were effective. Some management audits had not identified the issues we found during our assessment. Staff felt supported. They had access to training to improve their skills and knowledge. The provider was actively trying to recruit to the service as the extensive use of staff who were not permanently employed posed challenges to the management of the service. Nevertheless, staff mostly worked well together and with other stakeholders to understand and uphold best practice.
We found the service was in breach of regulation relating to good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan to ensure this issue is addressed.
People's experience of this service
People we spoke with told us they were happy living at the service and said staff were nice. We receive mixed comments from relatives. Some relatives felt their family members were safe living at the service. One relative said, “I think [family member] is safe and happy here. When I visit, I can see it. I do think that they [staff] know [family member] well. It [the home] is always clean and tidy when I have visited and I believe they [the provider] are spending some money upgrading the facilities.” Another relative said, “[Family member] is happy there and I believe [family member] is safe. It has changed for the better since the new manager has come in though.” Some relatives felt the service could improve. One relative said, “No. I am not 100% satisfied. I don't think that there is enough care. When I have raised concerns, they say they will look at things, but nothing ever changes.” We also received mixed feedback about staff. Some relatives told us staff were approachable, and others disagreed. One relative said, “Staff are a bit mixed, I get on with some better than others.” Another relative said, “Staff can be both good and not so good. I think there are probably enough of them. [Family member] has two or three favourites that are really good with [family member]. It is hard to say whether they [staff] are well trained or not. There are a lot of new staff all the time and they are going through a learning curve.” People told us they were supported to access the community and take part in hobbies that interested them. Relatives also commented positively about access to the community. One relative said, “[family member loves football and can always watch it on TV. They [staff] have also taught [family member] how to text, which is great as we can now communicate better.” Another relative said “Communication is good, they [staff] will always ring straight away if [family member] is ill. They [staff] also encourage [family member] to be as independent as they can be.”