Beckly House

Updated 4 January 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Our inspection took place on 1 November 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of an inspector, an assistant inspector and an expert-by-experience with a background of supporting people to use this type of service.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service, including past inspection reports and notifications sent by the provider about key incidents and events, which they are required to tell us about by law. We contacted people who commission services from the provider, safeguarding teams and other bodies such as the Fire and Rescue service and Healthwatch to ask if they had any significant information to share. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that represents the views of people who use health and social care services in England. We did not receive any information of concern.

The provider sent us a provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, regional manager and seven support staff. We also spoke with six people who used the service, and contacted three relatives by telephone. Some people were not able to talk with us to express their specific views about the service, however we spent some time making observations in the home to help us understand the experiences of people who lived there. We looked at records relating to care and support including three people’s care plans, medicines records for three people and a sample of information about the running of the home including audits, maintenance records and three staff files.

Updated 4 January 2018

Our unannounced inspection of Beckly House took place on 1 November 2017. At our last inspection we rated the service as ‘requires improvement’ and identified breaches of regulation relating to the premises and good governance. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions ‘safe’ and ‘well-led’ to at least good. At this inspection we found the provider had taken action to improve infection control, maintenance of the premises and governance systems to measure monitor and improve quality. We have now rated these key questions and the service overall as ‘good’.

Beckly House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Beckly House accommodates up to 12 people in one adapted building consisting of two units. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin ‘Registering the Right Support’ and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen, and Beckly House specialises in providing care and support to people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection 11 people used the service.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Beckly House was clean, well maintained and people told us they felt safe living there. Staff were recruited safely and were present in sufficient numbers to provide timely care and support, including ensuring people could maintain their independence as much as possible.

Risk was well assessed and we saw guidance in place to ensure risks were minimised with as little impact as possible on people’s independence.

Medicines were generally well managed, although we have made a recommendation about managing the temperature in the medicines storage room. ‘As and when’ medicines were well managed, including a minimal use of medicines to manage behaviours which challenged people and others.

Staff understood how to manage challenging incidents safely, and understood how to recognise and report any concerns about potential abuse.

Staff received effective support in the form of induction, on-going training, induction and appraisals.

People’s rights to choose and make decisions were supported in accordance with good practice and legislation. Staff asked people’s consent before any care or support was given, and we saw people had access to health and social care professionals when needed.

Menus were planned by people who used the service, and we saw people were able to choose and prepare meals for themselves. Culturally appropriate diets were supported.

People were treated with kindness and compassion, and care placed a clear emphasis on people’s individuality, dignity and independence. There was a lively and homely atmosphere and we saw people and staff knew each other well. People’s cultural and communication needs were well met.

Care plans were person-centred and kept up to date. Staff were well informed about changes in people’s needs or health.

There was a good approach to planning and supporting activities which people wanted to participate in. People were provided with information about how to make complaints, however the service had not received any since our last inspection.

There was a clear vision for the service, and we saw records and practice which demonstrated it was embedded in the service. Staff told us the registered manager and senior team were approachable, and we saw people who used the service felt free to go into the office at any time.

People, their relatives and staff were consulted in the running of the home. There was a good and inclusive approach to measuring and improving quality in the service.