- Care home
Beechwood Nursing Home
Assessment report published 19 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
About the service
Beechwood Nursing Home is a care home providing nursing or personal care. The service is based over 3 floors and has various communal areas. Since our last inspection this service has renovated part of the first floor to include some new bedrooms which are utilised to support people that need a short period of rehabilitation. This is usually following hospital discharges and for a period between 6-8 weeks, to enable people to rebuild daily living skills and return back to their homes to live independently.
Who the service is for
Beechwood Nursing Home provides support to older people including those living with dementia and younger people. At the time of the inspection, 27 people were being supported with a regulated activity.
Our view of the service
We carried out this assessment on 04 August 2026. The service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People were supported by staff who understood risks and took action to keep them safe while promoting their independence. Staff described an open culture where accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns were reported, discussed and used as learning opportunities. One staff member said, “Whatever we have we report and the nurse acts straight away. We all sit and discuss how to mitigate any ongoing risks.”
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this is through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were applied for correctly and monitored appropriately. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, and they had choice, control, and freedom over their lives.
We observed safe and attentive care throughout the inspection. Staff supported people to mobilise safely, responded promptly when people required assistance and administered medicines safely.
Governance systems supported safe care. Regular audits of medicines, accidents, safeguarding, wounds, nutrition and equipment enabled leaders to identify and address issues. Clinical audits had highlighted areas requiring improvement, such as bowel monitoring and catheter care, and records showed actions had been taken through additional oversight and staff retraining.
People received care and treatment which reflected their assessed needs and involved input from a range of healthcare professionals. The service worked closely with therapists, district nurses and rehabilitation teams to support people to regain and maintain independence. Visiting health professionals told us staff were, ‘very helpful’, kept them informed and worked collaboratively to achieve positive outcomes for people.
Staff had access to training and guidance relevant to their roles and demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs.
People experienced kind, respectful and personalised care from staff who knew them well. One person told us staff were, ‘great’ and told us how a staff member, “Would always try their best to help you no matter what.”
Staff understood the importance of dignity and privacy. They told us they closed doors, used coverings during personal care and ensured people remained comfortable.
People received care that reflected what mattered to them. Staff knew people's preferences, interests and life histories and used this knowledge to support meaningful engagement. One staff member described adapting their approach to an individual who enjoyed certain sports. They recognised how their mood and communication preferences influenced the support they wanted on different days.
People and relatives were listened to and their feedback led to improvements. In response to comments about activity provision, the service recruited a new activities co-ordinator, increased community outings using a newly acquired minibus and arranged additional entertainment sessions after residents specifically requested a performer by name. Quality assurance records demonstrated a clear ‘You said, we did’ approach.
During lunch, people were offered choices and staff responded flexibly when preferences changed. One person chose an alternative meal to those on the menu and staff explored different options until they found something the person wanted.
Leaders had strengthened oversight and governance systems to drive improvement and sustain good quality care. A wide range of audits, meetings and quality assurance processes provided oversight of care delivery, safety and people's experiences. Where issues had been identified, leaders had acted to improve practice and monitor progress.
There was a positive and supportive culture within the service. Staff consistently spoke positively about leadership and teamwork. One member of staff described the home as, ‘Very friendly and like a family’ while another said, “It’s a very good management team. The manager looks after the residents well and looks after us too.”
Feedback from professionals and relatives also reflected confidence in the leadership team. A visiting professional described management as, “Excellent and approachable.” Relatives told us managers were pleasant, accessible and responsive when concerns or suggestions were raised.
People's experience of this service
We gathered people’s experience, by completing observations which included short observational framework on assessment tool (SOFI), discussions with people and their relatives.
People and their relatives were positive about the care, support and relationships they experienced at Beechwood Nursing Home. Throughout our inspection we observed a relaxed and friendly atmosphere, with staff spending time talking with people, responding promptly to requests and supporting them in a way that reflected their individual preferences and needs.
People told us they felt comfortable living at the home and spoke warmly about staff. One person told us, “The staff are great.” Staff knew people well, including their preferences for food and drinks, and used this knowledge to provide personalised support. For example, staff were able to tell people how they took their drinks and remembered their favourite foods and snacks.
Relatives consistently described staff as kind, caring and approachable. One relative told us, “The staff are brilliant,” adding that staff, “Stop and talk to you” and make a point of interacting with people living at the service. They told us staff treated their relative with privacy, dignity and respect and said everyone in the home, including care, domestic and housekeeping staff, were friendly and hardworking.
People's choices were respected and they were encouraged to make decisions about their daily lives. During lunch we observed people choosing their meals and changing their minds if they wished. Staff responded positively and offered alternatives based on people's preferences. Staff took time to discuss different meal options with people, before arranging exactly what the person wanted. People were supported at their own pace and staff ensured everyone had sufficient time to eat and drink comfortably.
People were supported to remain as independent as possible. Staff described how they encouraged people to continue doing things for themselves and only provided assistance when required. We observed people being supported safely with mobility, walking and transfers while maintaining their independence and dignity. Rehabilitation beds within the service further promoted people's recovery and independence following periods of ill health and hospital admission.
People had opportunities to take part in activities and maintain links with their local community. Feedback from residents and relatives had led to improvements in activity provision, including the recruitment of a new activities co-ordinator, regular exercise sessions, musical entertainment and increased use of the service's minibus. People had recently enjoyed trips for ice cream and outings along the seafront. Residents had specifically requested the return of a favourite entertainer, and the service had arranged future bookings in response.
People, relatives and professionals told us staff worked well with external healthcare services to support positive outcomes. Visiting health professionals described staff as helpful and responsive to advice and told us communication was effective. They said staff shared relevant information and worked in partnership with rehabilitation and therapy teams to help people achieve the best possible outcomes.
People’s views influenced the development of the service. Residents and relatives were encouraged to share feedback through meetings and informal discussions. Some examples included feedback about activities, menu choices and the home environment. These had resulted in changes and improvements and demonstrated that leaders listened to feedback and acted on what mattered to people using the service.