During an assessment under our new approach
Date of assessment: 25 November – 12 December 2025. We visited the service on 25 November 2025 and reviewed the care and support people received along with their care records and management information. The Beeches Care Home is a 'care home’ and provides residential care to older people. Some people using the service were living with dementia. The Beeches Care Home can accommodate up to 32 people. On the day of inspection there were 28 people living in the service. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing and/or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement dependent on their registration with us. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. We carried out this assessment under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act.
Accidents and incidents were reviewed and analysed to identify learning and areas for improvement. Lessons learned were shared at staff team meetings. The provider made referrals to the local Safeguarding Adults team when there were concerns about people’s safety, however CQC were not informed about all incidents where safeguarding referrals had been made. We discussed this with the provider and they agreed to review and reflect on their processes. Safeguarding policies and procedures were available to the staff. The provider and management team acknowledged they were in the process of reviewing and updating people’s care plans and risk assessments. Current care plans did identify people’s care needs and risks. However, where care plans had been reviewed, we recognised they were more in-depth and personalised when compared to care plans which had not yet been reviewed. We reviewed recruitment processes and were assured members of staff were recruited safely. We observed, however, there were times where deployment of members of staff was not as effective as it could be. For example, throughout the morning of our inspection there were limited numbers of staff in the main lounge area and minimal engagement for people. We made the management team aware and in the afternoon deployment of members of staff was much improved and we observed a range of interactions and engagements activities for people carried out by members of staff. The care home was clean, tidy and well-maintained. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available throughout the care environment and stock was reordered when supplies were low. Members of staff accessed infection prevention and control (IPC) training and 3 members of staff had been trained as IPC champions. Medications were managed, on the whole, safely. We identified pain patch rotation charts and patch body maps were not always completed in line with guidance. This area for improvement had been identified by the provider in their medication audit.
People’s care plans were audited and the management team had implemented a planned approach to reviewing people’s care plans. People’s nutritional needs were managed effectively and details recorded in the provider’s electronic care planning system. We observed the mealtime experience was pleasant and people were supported to eat independently.
Members of staff were kind and caring in their interactions with people. There was a pleasant atmosphere in the care home. The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People were encouraged and supported to eat their meals independently. The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.
Care and support was person-centred and people's rooms were decorated in accordance with their personal tastes. We observed people were supported to make personal choices about their care and support and members of staff respected people’s individuality.
The provider worked with local health and care professionals to ensure people received appropriate support and continuity of care. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The provider had a clear vision and set of valued based on a culture of ‘family first’. The provider was committed to promoting an inclusive, compassionate and collaborative culture which respected the identity, dignity and unique contributions of every individual who lived, worked or visited the care home. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. The registered manager and the management team were knowledgeable about the needs of people and the organisation of the care home. There was a comprehensive system of checks, reviews and audits completed by the management team and the provider. This ensured good oversight and governance of the service. Learning and improvement were a key focus in the interactions between provider and the registered manager. The registered manager supported staff to be creative in their approach to activities and sessions. We saw evidence of good examples of how activities were supported and delivered in a creative way.