- Care home
Beechwood Care Home
We took enforcement action against Premier Nursing Homes Limited on 28 July 2026 for failing to meet regulations relating to safe care and treatment, and good governance at Beechwood Care Home.
Assessment report published 7 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 16 to 24 June 2026.
The service is a residential nursing home providing support to up to 60 older people and people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection 36 people were living at the service.
At the last inspection, we found breaches of regulations relating to the quality and safety of the care and treatment provided, and the governance of the service. We also identified a breach around failing to submit notifications to the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
At this inspection, whilst some improvements had been made, the service remained in breach of regulations relating to safety and governance.
There were significant and ongoing concerns about the consistency and safety of care, and the service was not always safe or well-led.
Governance systems had not been effective in identifying and addressing risks. Environmental risks were not consistently managed, including concerns relating to fire safety, infection prevention and control, and the overall condition and cleanliness of the premises. For example, fire doors did not always close properly, communal areas were cluttered, and some equipment and fittings were damaged or difficult to clean. Infection prevention and control practices were poor, with inappropriate storage of personal protective equipment, ineffective checks on cleaning standards, and poor laundry arrangements where clean and soiled items were stored together. These issues increased the risk of avoidable harm to people.
Care records and medicines management required improvement. Protocols to support people who were prescribed medicines on an ‘as and when’ basis were incomplete. Topical cream records lacked clarity, and transdermal patch rotation records were not maintained in line with guidance. Daily care records were often inconsistent, with gaps in the recording of food, fluid intake and repositioning monitoring.
People were not always supported in a timely way, particularly on the nursing unit, where staff did not always recognise when people required assistance with eating and drinking or encouragement to engage.
Staffing arrangements did not always ensure people received consistent care. We identified examples of ineffective handovers and staff lacking knowledge of people's individual needs. While people generally told us they felt safe, some relatives raised concerns about people going into other people’s bedrooms at night and expressed a wish for greater consistency in staffing.
Despite these shortfalls, there had been some improvements since the last inspection. An interim manager who had been in post for four weeks at the time of the inspection had introduced a number of changes, including daily flash meetings, weekly weight and wound reviews, increased managerial oversight, and greater involvement of relatives in menu planning and activity choices. People, relatives and staff described some positive impact from these changes.
People and relatives gave largely positive feedback about the caring approach of staff. People told us they felt safe and supported. They and their relatives consistently described staff as kind and caring. One person told us, “I love it here, I really do. I buzz and they're here straight away.” Relatives told us, “We know the staff genuinely care; they always update us.” Staff were observed to treat people with kindness and respect, and some compassionate, positive relationships had developed between people and staff. There were signs of improvement, but they were recent and insufficient at present to mitigate the significant and longstanding failures in leadership, governance and oversight.
People's experience of this service
People's experiences of care were not consistent across the home. While many people and relatives spoke positively about staff, we observed occasions where people did not receive timely or person-centred support. This was particularly evident on the nursing unit, where some people were not encouraged to eat or drink, meaningful engagement was limited, and staff did not always recognise when people required assistance or reassurance. We observed delays in meal service, limited menu choices, and occasions where people were not offered alternatives or supported in line with their care plans. One person held a cup of tea for a prolonged period without encouragement to drink, while another repeatedly asked for a drink without receiving a response. We also observed periods where people spent long periods in communal areas or their bedrooms without stimulation or interaction. One person told us, “I'm just bored to death.”
Some aspects of people's care compromised their dignity and wellbeing. We identified occasions where care was not delivered in line with planned support arrangements and observed environmental concerns, including unclean areas and unsafe storage of cleaning equipment. These issues had the potential to affect people's quality of life and experience of care.
Despite these concerns, people and relatives provided largely positive feedback about the caring approach of staff. People told us they generally felt safe living at the service and valued the support they received. One person said, “I love it here, I really do. If I need help, they come straight away.” Another person told us, “I am very happy here and the staff are lovely.” Another person said, “[Staff] always make me feel I am important to them.” Relatives also expressed confidence in the care provided. One relative told us, “We could not ask for a better place. The staff genuinely care for [Name] and always update us.”
We observed many positive interactions between staff and people. Staff were seen to provide reassurance, explain care and support clearly, and support people respectfully. On the residential unit, the atmosphere during lunch was relaxed and friendly, with staff offering discreet assistance and encouraging people to eat and drink. People described staff as kind, patient and caring, and some said they felt involved in decisions about their care. One person told us, “I have a say in how my care is provided.”
Relatives and staff recognised improvements since the interim manager's appointment a few weeks before our inspection visit. People told us communication had improved and relatives reported greater involvement in care planning, menus and activities. One relative said, “Initially things were not as good, but they are getting better. The communication is good.” Another relative commented, “The last four weeks have been the best. There is now more support and things feel a lot better.” While people's experiences remained variable and improvements were not yet fully embedded, there were signs that changes being introduced were beginning to have a positive impact on some people's experience of care.