Beechwood 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.

We did not look at this key question during the last inspection. A rating of good was based on the previous inspection rating. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or were treated with dignity and respect.

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 and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People and relatives spoke positively about the caring and compassionate relationships they had with staff. People consistently described staff as kind, patient and supportive, and many told us they felt safe and well cared for. One person said, "All the care staff here are amazing, and they feel like a second family. I need a lot of help, but they always provide it with a smile on their faces." A relative told us, "They are brilliant. Very attentive. It's not just clinical updates but also how [relative] has been. Whether they have had a happy day or might need cheering up a bit." These comments reflected the warm, familiar relationships that had developed between many people and staff.

We observed several positive examples of compassionate care. Staff often spoke respectfully to people, provided reassurance during care and support, and took time to explain what they were doing. People appeared comfortable in the presence of staff, and some interactions demonstrated genuine warmth, kindness and understanding of people's individual needs.

However, people's experiences were not always consistent and there were occasions where the service did not consistently uphold the standards people had a right to expect. We observed occasions where people did not receive timely support or meaningful engagement, particularly on the nursing unit. During mealtimes, staff did not always offer choices, encourage participation or recognise when people required additional support. There were also occasions where the environment and presentation of people's personal spaces did not reflect a consistently dignified standard of care.

While people overwhelmingly described staff as caring and compassionate, the quality of support people received was variable. This meant that kindness and respect were evident in many individual interactions but were not always consistently reflected in the way care was organised and delivered across the service.

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.

The provider treated people as individuals and respected their preferences, choices and personal histories. People and their relatives described staff as knowing them well and understanding their routines, wishes and the things that mattered to them. For example, relatives explained how staff respected people's preferred daily routines, including supporting those who chose to remain in bed later in the morning.

People spoke positively about the care and support they received and told us staff took time to understand them as individuals. One person said, "This was my decision. I love it here." Observations during the assessment also demonstrated personalised care in practice. Staff carefully supported one person with memory teddies made from their late husband's clothing, recognising their emotional significance. Another person was thoughtfully supported to make their own decision about whether to get up. These examples showed staff understood people's individual needs, preferences and life experiences and used this knowledge to support people in ways that were meaningful to them.

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.

People were not always supported to maintain independence, make meaningful choices, or have control over their day-to-day lives. While there was evidence some people were enabled to make decisions about their care, routines and daily preferences, this approach was not consistently applied across the service.

Some people and relatives spoke positively about staff supporting decision-making and respecting personal choices. Relatives described staff involving people in decisions about their care and supporting them to follow their preferred routines. There was also evidence of people and families being involved in developments within the service, including menu planning and activities. However, inspection observations showed that people were not always offered meaningful choices or opportunities to influence aspects of their daily lives. Staff did not consistently support people to make informed decisions about food, drinks, activities or other day-to-day matters, and opportunities to promote independence were sometimes missed. We also observed periods where people received limited engagement and support to participate in meaningful activities or social interaction.

These inconsistencies meant that people's autonomy, independence and control over their daily lives were not always promoted in a person-centred way. Although improvements were being introduced, they had not yet been embedded sufficiently to ensure people were consistently supported to exercise choice and maintain control over matters that were important to them.

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 did not always receive timely and responsive support when they needed it. Whilst some people spoke positively about staff responding promptly to requests for assistance, experiences were not consistent across the service. One person told us, “I buzz, they [staff] are here straight away.” However, we identified occasions where people waited for support with eating, drinking and other aspects of care, particularly on the nursing unit. Staff did not always recognise when people required assistance, encouragement or intervention, and planned support was not consistently maintained. This meant people's immediate needs were not always responded to promptly or in a way that reflected their individual circumstances.

These inconsistencies increased the risk of unmet needs and meant people could not always be assured they would receive timely support when required.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

The provider did not consistently promote staff wellbeing or provide the support needed to enable staff to deliver high-quality, person-centred care. There was evidence that improvements had been made since the interim manager's appointment, including the introduction of daily flash meetings, increased guidance, and more visible leadership and support. Staff told us these changes had helped to improve communication and oversight, and several described the past four weeks as more positive.

However, staff also described low morale, inconsistent teamwork and a lack of previous support and direction. One staff member told us, “Morale is low, it's getting better.” These challenges had affected the culture of the service and the ability of staff to consistently deliver the standard of care people needed.

While there were positive indications that staff support and wellbeing were improving, these changes were recent and had not yet become sufficiently embedded to demonstrate a sustained positive impact on staff experience or care delivery.