The Beeches Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s dignity.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Due to the concerns identified during the inspection, we could not be assured that people consistently received high-quality, compassionate care that fully upheld their dignity and individual preferences.

During parts of the inspection, staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs, and some positive relationships were evident. However, the quality of interactions was not always consistent. During some observations, support was delivered in a task-focused manner with limited engagement or meaningful conversation.

Despite the shortfalls identified most relatives spoke positively about the support people received and the caring approach of staff. A relative told us, “All the staff have been exceptionally kind and caring, they have gone above and beyond with [family member] to keep them smiling, safe and happy.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Individual staff demonstrated kindness and compassion in their interactions with people, and it was evident that many had developed positive relationships with those they supported. People were generally cared for by staff who knew them well and had developed an understanding of their personalities, preferences and routines. However, these strengths were not always supported by the systems and processes needed to ensure consistently high-quality care.

We found that gaps in staff training meant staff did not always have the in-depth knowledge and skills required to provide appropriate care and support across all areas of people's needs. In addition, shortcomings in care planning and risk assessment processes meant staff were not always provided with accurate, up-to-date or detailed guidance to inform their practice. As a result, there was a risk that care was delivered inconsistently and did not always reflect people's current needs, preferences or identified risks. These issues reduced assurance that people consistently received safe, personalised and effective care, despite the commitment and caring approach demonstrated by individual staff members.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staffing levels and the deployment of staff did not consistently enable people to make decisions about how they spent their time or receive support in line with their preferences. During key periods of the day, there was a lack of effective leadership oversight to care and ensure people's individual choices were respected. As a result, support was often task-focused rather than person-centred, with some people experiencing delays in receiving assistance or limited opportunities to engage in activities and routines of their choosing. This reduced people's ability to exercise control over their day-to-day lives and increased the risk that their care was delivered around the needs of the service rather than their own wishes, preferences and goals.

The registered manager was open to discussions about the deployment of staff, and in particular, how people’s choice was promoted over lunchtimes, and made a commitment to making improvements.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People's immediate needs were not always recognised or responded to in a timely way. During observations, there were occasions when people showed clear signs that they required support, but staff did not respond promptly. For example, some people were left sitting with food on their hands and face following a meal, without receiving assistance to maintain their comfort and dignity. This indicated that staff were not always attentive to people's presentation or responsive to cues that support was required.

Staff did not consistently recognise or act upon signs that people may have been experiencing difficulty while eating or drinking. On both days of the inspection, a person coughed excessively whilst drinking, but staff did not record or escalate the situation. This demonstrated a lack of awareness of potential risks and a failure to respond appropriately to an individual's immediate needs.

For people who relied on non-verbal communication, recognising and interpreting behaviours, sounds and physical responses was particularly important. Opportunities were sometimes missed to explore whether a person was expressing discomfort, requesting assistance, making a choice or attempting to communicate an unmet need. As a result, support was not always responsive to what people were communicating in the moment.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of staff or create a culture that consistently enabled them to deliver high-quality, person-centred care. While some staff described positive experiences of working at The Beeches Residential Care Home, feedback was mixed and highlighted concerns about support, fairness and leadership within the service.

Several staff spoke positively about their roles, describing a supportive team culture and expressing pride in their work. One member of staff told us, “I feel valued by my manager especially [management role] and colleagues because they treat me with respect, listen to my ideas and concerns and regard my work. We work as a team, supporting each other to achieve our common goal which is to make [people] feel at home.” This demonstrated that some staff experienced positive working relationships and felt recognised for their contribution.

However, other staff described a less positive experience and told us they did not always feel supported by the management team. Some staff raised concerns about inconsistent treatment and perceived favouritism within the workforce. One member of staff commented, “Managers do not lead by example, there is a lot of unfair treatment due to many family members being in the staff team. There are relatives working together. Most of the carers in the home are related in one way or another to others, this creates unfair treatment, favouring family members and making an unwelcoming environment for new carers.”

This feedback indicated that the provider had not developed a consistently open, inclusive and supportive culture where all staff felt valued equally. The concerns identified meant the provider could not be assured that all staff were being effectively supported, developed and treated fairly, which had the potential to impact both staff wellbeing and outcomes for people living at the service.