The Beeches

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 72 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed to identify any actions that could be taken to prevent a recurrence. For example, following an incident in which a person received care that was not in line with their recorded wishes, the management team held a reflective practice meeting with staff to establish what action could be taken to prevent a similar incident happening again.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was effectively managed and monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

There were procedures in place to ensure people’s transition from other services was well-managed, including effective communication with people, their families, and relevant professionals.

The provider worked with people to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff focused on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns appropriately when necessary.

When safeguarding concerns had been raised, the provider had worked with the local authority and the police to investigate these and provided information requested by other agencies in a timely way.

Staff attended safeguarding training in their induction and had access to regular refresher training. Staff knew how to recognise potential abuse and understood their responsibilities to report any concerns they had. A member of staff told us, “We always look for signs [of potential abuse], like unexplained bruising, a change in mood, not caring for themselves, or just not being themselves. I would report [any concerns] to the senior, but there are website details and phone numbers if we want to go straight to [local authority] safeguarding [team] ourselves.”

Where people were subject to restrictions for their own safety, the provider had applied for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are designed to protect people who lack the mental capacity to consent to their care or treatment, especially when that involves restricting their freedoms.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People told us they felt safe at the home and when staff provided their care. One person said, “I feel completely safe with the staff here.” Relatives confirmed they were confident that their family members received safe care that met their needs. One relative told us, “I am very happy with the care and [family member’s] safety.”

Assessments had been carried out to identify any risks involved in people’s care. Where risks had been identified, information was provided for staff about how to mitigate these. We observed during our visit that staff supported people to mobilise safely and offered reassurance where necessary to ensure people felt safe and comfortable.

We found some people’s pressure-relieving mattresses had not been set correctly, which potentially placed them at risk of harm. We shared this feedback with the provider, who took immediate action to check people’s pressure-relieving mattress settings and correct them where necessary. The provider also created a reminder for staff on the electronic care planning system to check pressure-relieving mattress settings and advised that these checks would be audited by the management team.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

We saw up to date certification confirming gas, electrical, water, and fire safety. There was an up-to-date fire risk assessment in place, and fire checks and drills were carried out regularly. Equipment such as hoists, adapted baths, and lifts were checked and serviced in line with manufacturers’ recommendations.

A health and safety audit carried out in July 2025 identified some necessary remedial actions. We saw evidence that these had been followed up and completed.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely and received effective induction, training and development.

People told us staff were available when they needed them. They said staff responded promptly when they used their call bells. One person told us, “There is always someone around. They manage well and respond to all of us quickly.” Relatives confirmed they saw enough staff available to meet people’s needs when they visited. One relative said, “[Family member] has never had to wait [for staff] when we have been there.”

A senior member of staff told us the skill mix of the team was considered when planning the allocation for each shift to ensure suitably experienced staff were available to support less experienced colleagues. The member of staff said, "We know the strength of the staff; some are very experienced, some less so. We match experienced staff with the less experienced staff."

All staff had an induction when they joined the team, which included shadowing colleagues to understand people’s needs and how they preferred their care to be provided. Staff had access to the ongoing training, supervision and support they needed to carry out their roles effectively.

Staff were recruited safely. The provider carried out pre-employment checks including obtaining a Disclosure and Barring Service certificate. Disclosure and Barring Service checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

Staff assessed and managed the risk of infection. They controlled the risk of it spreading and understood their responsibility to share concerns with appropriate agencies if necessary.

Staff attended training in infection prevention and control (IPC) and understood how to protect people from the risk of infection. Housekeeping staff were on duty 7 days a week, and there were checklists in place to ensure good hygiene was maintained in all areas of the home. The service had a nominated IPC lead, who carried out monthly audits of cleaning

People told us staff kept the home clean and fresh. One person said, “The cleaners are lovely and they never stop; they keep it beautifully clean.” The service had been refurbished since our last inspection and we observed that all areas of the home were clean and hygienic during our visit.

People’s medicines and treatments were managed safely. People told us staff knew and respected their preferences about their medicines. Relatives said staff ensured their family members’ received their medicines in line with their prescriptions.

The provider had suitable systems for the ordering, storage, recording, and disposal of medicines. Medicines were audited regularly as part of the provider's quality monitoring processes.

Staff received training in medicines management, and their competency was assessed before they were authorised to administer medicines. Staff administering medicines during our visit followed good practice guidelines when doing so. The medicines administration records we checked were accurate and up to date.