Homebeech

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 54 (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 did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any changes in people’s needs.

At the last assessment, there was a lack of guidance for staff on how to manage a person’s anxiety. Care plans for people with a learning disability or autistic people continued to lack information. For example, a care plan referred to the person’s learning disability impacting on their decision-making, but there was no further information to show how staff might support them.

There was no evidence to show ‘active support’ as a method to enable people with a learning disability or autistic people to engage more in their daily lives. Active support is about turning person-centred plans into person-centred action. Support provided by staff was different to that provided for other people living at Homebeech. Active support enables people with a learning disability to live an ordinary life and to be actively involved in all decisions, be a valued member of society and feel accepted within the community. There was no evidence to show how active support was used by staff and this resulted in there being a lack of opportunities or engagement in activities for some people.

We talked with staff about their understanding of learning disability and autism, and about specific training on this. Whilst staff knew people well, they lacked understanding on how to support people in a person-centred way that encouraged their independence and enhanced their lives.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and opportunity.

People had access to a range of health and social care professionals and received co-ordinated care and support.

Where needed, referrals were made to specialist services for advice and guidance. For example, people at risk of choking or with swallowing difficulties were referred to a speech and language therapist for advice. We contacted some health and social care professionals who had provided advice and guidance for people at Homebeech, or had other involvement with the home, but we did not receive any responses.

The provider did not always supply appropriate information in formats that were tailored to meet individual needs.

There was some signage around the home to help people navigate and orientate, but information was not currently always provided in an accessible format. For example, people chose what they would like to eat for lunch the day before. This was recorded by a member of the care staff. However, pictures of menu choices that were on offer could assist people in making an informed decision. Plated-up meals shown to people to demonstrate this as the meal was served and aid their understanding of what a particular dish looked like.

People’s diverse communication needs were catered for. For example, for 1 person who did not communicate verbally, they used a picture board which they could point to, to show whether they were in pain, hungry, happy, sad or tired.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas.

We asked people how they were involved with the service and whether they had residents’ meetings or how they were asked for their feedback about Homebeech. One person said, “They used to have meetings, but I don’t know if they still do. I used to go regularly.” Another person told us, “I don’t know if they have them, but I’d want to go along.” A third person added, “They used to bring round questionnaires, but they don’t now.” However, we were shown minutes of residents’ meetings that had taken place in July and November 2025. Staff had not always ensured people and their relatives were made aware of when residents’ meetings were due to take place.

People knew how to make a complaint if they had a concern. One person said, “I would talk to the manager, but I never see them.” Another person told us, “I would have a word with the staff and ask them to speak to someone in charge and say I’d like her to speak to me.” Information on how to make a complaint was provided in an accessible format. Complaints were recorded and included the actions taken by the provider.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. However, the physical environment was not dementia-friendly or designed to specifically support people with a learning disability or autistic people.

Homebeech, whilst physically accessible, was not a purpose-built care home, but a conversion of a row of terraced houses. The environment was not dementia friendly. A dementia-friendly environment is designed to feel safe and supportive for people living with dementia and be beneficial for people with a learning disability, to reduce anxiety, with the inclusion of quiet areas to manage sensory overload. Such an environment would reduce confusion and distress whilst promoting independence through clear signage, good lighting, uncluttered spaces and sensory cues. There was nothing to balance stimulation with calm or provision of familiar objects that might aid memory or aid orientation to enable people with dementia to live well.

People’s care and support was accessible, timely and in line with legal requirements. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals, and support from external agencies as needed.

Staff did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Homebeech is registered to provide care and support to people with a variety of needs, including older people, younger adults, dementia, learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder. The provider’s website, there is no mention of learning disability or autism or how the home supports this group of people living at the home.

People were provided with care and support that was clinically based rather than person-centred. This is not in line with the guidance under Right support, right care, right culture. The clinical or medical model views a learning disability as the person’s impairment or deficit requiring treatment by professionals and focuses on the condition as the issue.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including the end of their life.

People were supported by staff and their GP to make decisions about their future plans and end of life wishes. Their capacity to make specific decisions had been assessed and many people involved their relatives in their future plans. Care plans documented people’s choices in this regard. Some people had Recommended Summary Plans for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT). These focused on people’s individual needs and preferences and included advice in an emergency situation when a person may be unable to communicate, such as during cardiac arrest.