You are here

The Beeches Residential Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 October 2017

This inspection took place on 12 September 2017.

The Beeches is a care home, run by D J Barzotelli, providing accommodation with personal care and support for up to 18 adults with learning disabilities. The home is situated close to Canterbury town centre. 17 people were living there at the time of the inspection.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good.

People told us they were happy in the home. The majority of people had lived there for many years and were supported by the registered manager and staff whom they had known and had worked there for the last 10 to 15 years. There was an established warm culture of support and friendly banter amongst people and staff that they described as being like a ‘large family’.

The registered manager worked alongside staff and spent time with people. People said they were comfortable and confident to say what they thought and there was a clear easy to understand complaint procedure. People’s views about the service offered were routinely sought. What people liked and what could be better were taken into consideration in the development of the service, alongside current good practice guidance from professional organisations. The entrance hall area had been decorated following feedback and with involvement of people who had chosen a new colour scheme and furnishings.

There were plenty of staff to support people and staff were recruited safely. Staff were kind and caring to people and people were treated with dignity and respect. Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse and the registered manager had reported any safeguarding concerns to the local authority. Action had been taken to prevent incidents happening again as far as possible.

There were clear ways to help people make decisions. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. There were some restrictions in the environment to protect people. These did not affect everyone, for example some people had keys and all restrictions were kept under review by the registered manager.

People were occupied with their own routines during the day and had established their preferred lifestyle. Each person had their own interests and preferences and these were supported with a variety of planned and spontaneous activities. People’s care plans were informative and person centred and included assessments of risk to protect people. People were supported to develop their independence as much as they wanted to.

People said they enjoyed the meals and some people chatted with the cook about the food. There was a set menu and people, who needed them, had variations to accommodate specialist diets and health care conditions.

People were supported to keep as well and healthy as possible. If people became unwell the staff responded promptly and made sure that people accessed the appropriate services as quickly as possible. People received their medicines safely and when they needed them, by staff who were trained and competent.

The registered manager and staff made sure they had the skills, accessed the right specialist support and had appropriate equipment to support people if their needs changed and the team had gone the extra mile to care for people at the end of their life.

The registered manager carried out checks of the home and systems to make sure it was safe and staff knew how to respond if there was an issue or an emergency. The Care Quality Commission had been notified of important events within the service, as required by law.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Inspection areas



Updated 21 October 2017

The service remains Good.

People were protected from abuse. Staff knew signs of abuse and had received training to keep people as safe as possible.

Risks to people had been identified and action had been taken to keep people safe and well.

Staffing levels were flexible and determined by people’s needs and staff were recruited safely.

People were supported to take their medicines safely.



Updated 21 October 2017

The service remains Good.

Staff received training to have the skills and knowledge to support people and understand their needs.

Staff offered people choices in all areas of their life and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were supported to eat a healthy varied diet and eat at their own pace.

People were supported to maintain good health and when people became unwell their individual needs were supported.



Updated 21 October 2017

The service remains Good.

People had built up strong relationships with each other and staff.

People had the opportunity for sociable support and their privacy was respected.

Staff were flexible and responded quickly to people’s changing needs or wishes.

People were supported to be as independent as they wanted to be.



Updated 21 October 2017

The service remains Good.

People received support and care in the way they wanted. Care plans had been updated and were person centred.

There was an easy read complaints procedure that people used.



Updated 21 October 2017

The service remains Good.

There was a warm, well established culture.

The registered manager worked alongside the staff team and was visible and available to people.

People and their relatives were regularly asked for feedback on the service and this was acted on.

The registered manager completed a range of checks and audits.