Archived: Beeches Bungalow

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with staff and the interim manager for Children's and Young Person Learning Disability community teams, and from looking at records. At the time of our visit there was one young person present, however, they declined to talk with us. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Improvements had been made to the play equipment, with the replacement of all old and damaged toys and outside play equipment.

Changes to the environment had taken place to ensure that young people had access to safe external and internal areas. We did find that one fire exit was partially blocked, and this was addressed during our visit.

Is the service effective?

We found that improvements had been made to ensure that staff were aware of their responsibilities within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and that capacity assessments had been carried out for all the young people aged over 16. However, we found that staff were not provided with up-to-date training in some areas, which could put some young people who use the service at risk.

We found that the care documentation was readily available and had been up-dated and young people's care was reviewed regularly to ensure they received the right support for their needs.

Is the service caring?

The care plans were developed with the involvement of the young person who uses the service or their parent/carer.

People's preferences, likes and dislikes had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's care plan.

Parents also talked about their disappointment at the Trust removing the new ball pond and leaving the play area unfinished.

One young person talked often about wanting to go out and we saw that staff opened the patio and other doors to the garden to allow freer access in and out when the person chose, without them having to ask.

People's rights were not always upheld. Young people over 16 years old had not had been assessed under the Mental Capacity Act to assess their ability to make their own decision and were subjected to having decisions made for them. Restrictions on a young person's liberty had not been properly assessed or necessarily in their best interests.

We noted that the home was still not updating care plans and reviews and since our last visit this situation had deteriorated.

People who use the service, staff and visitors were not always protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

We found that younger people were not provided with the suitable play and activity equipment they needed.

People were not always protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because records were disorganised, inaccurate and could not be promptly located when needed.