We carried out a review of the data available to us about Beech Spinney on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Beech Spinney, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
• People were supported by staff who were fully trained in infection prevention and control and wore Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in line with current guidance.
• People were supported to visit their relatives through independent window visits to their homes in transport ensuring social distancing guidance was followed.
• Where people had tested positive for Covid-19, they were self isolated immediately and supported by a separate cohort of staff in a self contained unit to reduce the risk of transmission.
• The provider had engaged with local commissioners to complete virtual health reviews which were used to inform Covid-19 passports. This ensured that if a person was admitted to hospital due to Covid-19, information regarding their health was comprehensive and up to date.
• Mental capacity assessments had been completed when required and where people were assessed as lacking capacity to consent to testing, relevant professionals had been involved to make least restrictive decisions in people’s best interests.
• The provider had a pandemic committee in place who met regularly to ensure services were up to date and compliant with current guidance regarding Covid-19.
Beech Spinney is a residential care home that is registered for up to seven people. It was providing personal care to seven people who have a learning disability and/or autism at the time of the inspection.
This care service supported people in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidelines. 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.
People’s experience of using this service:
Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and discrimination. They knew to report any concerns and ensure action was taken. The registered manager worked with the local authority safeguarding adults team to protect people.
Staff were supported in their roles and received an effective level of training. We observed them supporting people in a competent manner.
People continued to be supported by an established team of staff who provided kind and personalised care to people living in the home. Safe recruitment of staff ensured people were supported by staff of good character.
People were protected from harm by the provider having effective systems in place to monitor medicine management, staffing, infection control and upkeep of the premises.
Staff promoted people's dignity and privacy. Staff provided person-centred support by listening to people and engaging them at every opportunity. Staff were caring and understanding towards people. People using the service appeared comfortable in the presence of staff
The premises provided suitable accommodation for people with communal areas and bedrooms which were personalised to people’s individual interests.
Support plans were detailed and reviewed with the person and their relatives when possible. Staff worked with and took advice from health care professionals. People's health care needs were met.
People had a variety of activities which they enjoyed on a regular basis. People and relatives' views were sought, and opportunities taken to improve the service. Formal supervision meetings were carried out with staff. They told us they were supported and clear about what was expected of them.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Audits and checks were carried out, and any issues identified and rectified.
The home continued to meet the characteristics of a rating of good in all areas. More information about the inspection is in the full report.
Rating at last inspection:
The home was rated Good at the last inspection (report published in May 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
People had their own rooms and the use of a number of communal areas including lounges, kitchens, dining rooms, conservatory, sensory room and garden areas. People also had the use of an adjacent hydrotherapy suite.
A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection. 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.
Risks to people's safety were understood by staff and staff took action to support people in ways which helped them to stay safe. Staff understood what actions to take if they had any concerns for people's safety or wellbeing. There was enough staff available to support people so their care and safety needs would be met. People were supported to take their medicines so they would remain well.
Staff worked with other organisations and relatives so people's right to make decisions and their freedom was protected. Staff used their knowledge and skills when caring for people so they would get the support they needed. People were supported by staff to enjoy a range of food and drinks. Where people needed extra support to have enough to eat and drink staff cared for them so they remained well. People were supported to attend health appointments. Where people needed extra support because they were in hospital this was arranged for them. Staff worked with health organisations so people would receive the care they needed.
People were given encouragement and reassurance when they needed it and we saw caring relationships had been built with the staff and registered manager. Staff supported people so they were able to make their own choices about what daily care they wanted. People's need for dignity was understood and acted upon by staff.
People benefited from living in a home where staff took action when people's needs changed. Staff understood people’s individual care and support needs and their preferences. Complaints about the service were treated as opportunities to develop people’s care further and processes were in place so lessons would be learnt.
Relatives and staff felt listened to when they made suggestions for improving people's individual care and the way the home was run. Staff understood what was expected of them and were supported through training and discussions with their managers. Regular checks were undertaken on the quality of the care by the provider and registered manager and actions were taken to develop the home further.
We looked at how the home supported people who received a service and how they kept people safe. We looked at how the service monitored and reviewed the quality of the care provided and how they managed complaints.
Is the service safe?
We found that people received a service that was safe. Staff were very knowledgeable about people's individual needs, likes and dislikes. They followed detailed care plans that were regularly reviewed and updated. Risks had been identified and actions had been taken to reduce them. We observed positive interactions between the people who received a service and staff.
Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.
The home had proper processes in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We reviewed how the provider supported people when they had to place restrictions on their liberty. The registered manager understood their role in this process and acted appropriately. They showed us how they implemented decisions made in a person's best interest. They told us how they made changes to the environment to accommodate people's needs.
Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. This meant that the registered manager could be confident that only staff who were suitable to work with vulnerable people were appointed.
Is the service effective?
There was an advocacy service available if people needed it. This meant that when required people could access additional support. People's health and care needs were assessed. Their representatives were involved in developing plans of care.
Is the service caring?
We saw that staff were kind and attentive. From our discussions and observations we found that staff knew people well. Staff spoke with great warmth and affection when telling us about the people they supported. A relative told us, 'I visit X regularly and the staff are lovely to them and other the people in the home'.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
Staff told us that they worked closely with health and social care professionals to provide consistency and appropriate support. Staff were able to offer effective support when people's health needs changed. One person's family member told us that staff effectively met the changing needs of their relative.
Is the service well-led?
The service was well led and staff told us that the registered manager and senior staff were approachable. They were understanding of their roles and responsibilities. We saw how they implemented procedures and reviewed processes to ensure they met quality standards. This meant that the service was able to demonstrate that they ran a good service.