Beeches Care 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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

At the last inspection the service was in breach of regulations relating to good governance. At this inspection, enough improvements had been made, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulations.

This service scored 60 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, but did not always respect their privacy and dignity.

The provider did not ensure people’s privacy was upheld. Several people told us their bedroom doors did not have a lock, and we noted a hole in the bathroom door where the lock had been removed and not replaced. People commented on the impact this had on them. One person told us, “Having a lock on your door should be an option really, it’s not nice knowing anyone can just walk in.” Another added, “I’ve no lock on my door. I don’t always sleep well because I never know who might come in.”

However, staff were seen to be kind and compassionate, and people and their relatives spoke fondly about them. A relative added, “[Staff] are kind and caring. They are angels. People are treated with respect.” Regular dignity audits were carried out.

Following feedback, the registered manager assured us people would be consulted about having a lock fitted to their bedroom door and we were given a timeframe for fixing the bathroom lock.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff were seen to refer to people by their chosen name, and people confirmed staff spent time with them. One person said, “The staff like me, I have a good relationship with them, and I trust them.” Another added, “We chat for ages.” People’s personal histories, needs and preferences were documented in care plans, to help staff have a better understanding of them.

Staff took the time to meet people’s communication needs, enabling them to engage in their care and treatment. One person did not speak English as their first language. A staff member greeted them in their native language, explaining how ‘Google Translate’ was used for more complex conversations.

The provider ensured people’s religious needs were met, with the local clergy visiting the home bi-weekly.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people had choice and control over their own care, but people did not always have adequate access to activities to support their health and wellbeing.

The provider did provide access to some activities and special events, but this was not adequate to maintain good wellbeing. Several people, relatives and staff commented on the lack of day-to-day activities. A staff member told us, “There are not enough activities. Residents have complained about the lack of stimulation.” A person added, “The boredom is killing me. A dog comes in and it is lovely, but every day is the same.”

However, care plans promoted choice and control and people confirmed they were able to choose when they got up, when they ate and where they spent their time. People were able to enjoy visits whenever they wanted, the service user guide stating, ‘Relatives and friends are welcome to visit at any time.’

Following feedback, the registered manager confirmed recruitment was ongoing for a second activities coordinator to help improve the activities provision.

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.

Staff did not always assist people in a timely manner. We received mixed feedback on the timeliness of staff responding to people’s requests for help. One person told us, “The staff always come quickly.” But a relative said, “Sometimes [person] doesn’t get taken to the toilet straight away, and people who have soiled are not always changed quickly if there is only 1 staff available.”

However, staff told us how they observed people for signs of pain or discomfort, and a tool was used to help identify pain levels for people who could not communicate verbally. A staff member said, “Those people we do know, we can tell from their behaviours or read the cues or facial expressions.”

Nursing staff were available to conduct checks on people who seemed unwell; and technology such as blood pressure kits, a pulsometer and glucose monitor was available to assist them.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The provider ensured staff had allocated break times, and they received small tokens of appreciation for staying up to date with training and to celebrate Christmas. This contributed to staff feeling valued, and to good morale within the service. A staff member told us, “Staff are treated well, they seem happy.”

Staff were supported if they were struggling at work or in their personal lives. The registered manager explained how they had recently organised a phased return to work for a staff member, following a leave of absence.