We carried out a review of the data available to us about Beechwood House Care Home 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 Beechwood House Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Beechwood House Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care and accommodation for up to 28 people. The provider specialises in the care of older people aged 65 and over. There were 22 people living at Beechwood House at the time of the inspection.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported by staff that were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. Staff understood the needs of the people they supported well and knew them as a person. All the feedback we received from people and their relatives was positive.
People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff felt supported by the registered manager. Staff understood their role and received appropriate training that supported them in their roles.
Staff worked together with a range of healthcare professionals to achieve positive outcomes for people. Staff supported people to maintain important relationships and continue personal hobbies and interests.
Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard [AIS]. The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The registered manager was aware of the AIS and ensured information was shared in an accessible way.
People's concerns and complaints were listened and responded to. Accidents and incidents were reviewed. People and their relatives commented positively about the registered manager and the quality of care their family member received.
Quality monitoring systems were in place but not effective, the provider had not identified some minor shortfalls through their governance system. Specifically, with regards to medicine management. We recommend the provider consider current guidance on managing people’s medicines and take action to update their practice.
The registered manager had ensured all relevant legal requirements, including registration and safety obligations, and the submission of notifications, had been complied with. The registered manager felt staff had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. This was evident to us throughout the inspection.
Although most people had capacity some did not, and staff were not always working with these people within the principles of the MCA, and DoLS. We recommend the provider consider current guidance in Mental Capacity and DoLs in care homes and take action to update their practice.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published in June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection in June 2015, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good
People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. One person said, “I feel safe and well looked after.” There were adequate numbers of staff to provide care to people in a relaxed and unhurried manner.
People received effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff assisted people to access healthcare professionals according to their specific needs. 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.
People told us staff were kind and treated them with respect and dignity. One person said, “Staff are definitely kind.” Staff knew people well and involved them in all decisions about their care and support. Throughout the inspection we heard staff chatting to people and there was friendly banter and laughter.
People received care that was responsive to their needs and took account of their individuality. One person said, “They have to work around me.” Another person told us “You can more or less do what you like.” There were organised activities for people to join in with if they wished to.
The service was well led by a provider and registered manager who were committed to listening to people’s views and making on-going improvements. There was an open and friendly culture which helped to make Beechwood House a comfortable home for people.
This inspection was unannounced and took place on 9 June 2015.
Beechwood House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to up to 28 people. It specialises in the care of older people. At the time of this inspection there were 24 people living at the home.
The last inspection of the home was carried out in September 2013. No concerns were identified with the care being provided to people at that inspection.
There is 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.
The registered manager was open and approachable and had a good knowledge of people who lived at the home. Everyone said they would be comfortable to make a complaint or raise any concerns about their care.
There was a menu which provided a variety of home cooked meals. There were mixed comments about the food in the home and limited opportunities for people to make choices about their main meal of the day.
People were supported by kind caring staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. There was always sufficient staff available to respond to people’s requests for assistance. One person told us “It’s much better than I ever thought it would be. You can do what you want and there’s always someone to help when you need it.”
People were able to make choices about how they spent their time and were encouraged to maintain their independence. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and people were able to choose whether to socialise or spend time in the privacy of their personal rooms.
There was a variety of organised activities which catered for a range of interests. People were informed about activities in advance to enable them to make choices about how they spent their time. One person said “You can pick and choose what you go to. They try to make sure there’s something for everyone.”
People received effective care and support which was adjusted to meet their changing needs. People had access to appropriate healthcare professionals to make sure they received effective treatment when required.
There were risk assessments in place which enabled people who wished to look after and administer their own medicines to do so safely. Other people received their prescribed medicines from staff who were assessed as competent to carry out this task.
There were systems to monitor the quality of the service and seek people’s views. People were able to give feedback in person, through comments and questionnaires and at resident’s meetings.
One person told us ' the treatment here is first class' and another told us that they loved the environment. We found that the home itself together with the person centred approach which was promoted, gave an overall atmosphere of relaxation and well being which was reflected in the mood and appearances of people.
There were systems in place for monitoring the quality of the service and there were regular and comprehensive reviews of individual care which promoted a safe and effective service.
Staff were led by an experienced registered manager and they felt very supported in day to day work. We saw that they had regular supervision, training and development which meant that the service was delivered by staff who competent.
People told us they knew where to go if they had a complaint felt they could talk easily to the manager or staff. We found that staff understood their responsibility in safeguarding and that there were effective systems for risk assessment and referring to other professionals as appropriate.
People said they were very well cared for. They told us that they saw their GP or other health professionals such as the district nurse or dentist if they needed to. One person said 'The staff understand what care I need. They are all extremely understanding'.
People we spoke with said they thought the home was a safe place for them to live. Every person we spoke with said they were very happy with the home and had never had cause to complain. One person told us 'Yes, I feel safe. Of course it's safe here. I would find it unacceptable if it wasn't'.
People who lived in the home said staff were available when they needed them and they understood the care and support they needed. One person said 'I find all the staff are very nice and kind. They come round to check on you. They check on you at night as well which I like'.
People who lived in the home told us they were asked to give their views on the home and that they were listened to. People spoke very highly of the home. One person said 'I tried two other homes before this one and this home is in a class of its own. The whole atmosphere is very good. I don't think it could be beaten here. They don't have to ask me if I'm happy because they know I am'.
Shortfalls identified at the last inspection on 1 February 2011 related to the lack of information in individuals' care plans not of the care people received. We also found that the home did not have procedures in place to obtain, and act in accordance with, the consent of people using the service in relation to the care and treatment they received. The provider was required to provide us with a plan detailing the action they would take to improve. We received the action plan within the agreed timescale and this identified the improvements made.
People confirmed that staff always knocked on their bedroom doors before entering.
People confirmed that the home supported them to maintain a level of independence. One person told us; "I take care of myself and look after my own medicines though the staff are always there if I need them"
Care plans did not contain evidence that people using the service and/or their representatives were provided with opportunities to be involved in the care planning and review process.
We were unable to ascertain how the home assessed people in relation to their ability to give consent.
People currently do not benefit from a staff team who have been trained in the Mental Capacity Act .
People told us that they were "very happy" with the care they received. They told us "the staff are very kind and will always help you", "you can't fault the staff they are marvellous", "I feel very well cared for and have no complaints at all"
They told us that staff were aware of their preferences and that these were respected, "They know that I like to get up at 8 o'clock in the morning", "The staff never make me do anything I don't want to do, they are so kind".
Through our observations and on discussion with staff, It was apparent that people benefit from a staff team who are aware of people's needs and preferences.
A visitor to the home confirmed that their relative was "very well cared for".
People benefit from a stable staff team who are aware of individual's assessed needs and preferences though care planning documentation is not fully reflective of peoples' assessed needs or preferences.
People told us that "the food is just wonderful", "there is always plenty to eat and you certainly never go hungry here", "the menus are displayed and we can choose what we want".
When asked people confirmed that staff were aware of their dietary preferences.
People have access to appropriate health care professionals. People said "we can always see a doctor when we need to".
Each person spoken with during our visit confirmed they felt "very safe" at the home.
People are protected by the home's procedures for safeguarding people from the risk of abuse.
People using the service can be confident that their medicines are appropriately managed and administered by staff who have been appropriately trained.
People told us; "I am very happy here and I have my own bedroom which I like very much", "I wouldn't want to live anywhere else, it is so homely here"
People also told us that they could make choices about where to spend their day; "Sometimes I like to stay in my room and sometimes I like to chat to my friends in the lounge".
"I prefer my own company so like to stay in my room" "The staff always stick their head round the door to give me a smile and see if I am alright".
People live in a homely environment which is well maintained and comfortably furnished.
People told us that the home was 'always clean and fresh smelling"
We observed people moving freely around the home and utilising all communal areas.
People are able to access their bedrooms throughout the day as they choose.
We observed staff knocking on bedroom doors before entering.
People using the service are protected from the risk of harm or abuse by the home's staff recruitment procedures
Whilst not involved in staff recruitment, people using the service were very positive about the registered manager and the staff team. They said "they are all marvellous, you can't fault any of them", "all the staff are so kind and considerate", "we are just like one big happy family".
People using the service told us that "the staff are always there when you need them". They told us that staff responded promptly to call bells.
People also said "the carers and the manager always have time for a chat with you".
Throughout the visit we were able to observe staff interacting and communicating with people using the service. Interactions were noted to be respectful and unhurried. Staff communicated with people in a kind and professional manner. People using the service were seen to respond in a positive way to staff interactions.
The atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed with lots of laughter.
We noted a good staff presence throughout the day.
People live in a home which encourages and makes changes based on the views of people using the service. People can feel confident that the quality of the service provided is regularly monitored.
People told us that they would feel confident in raising concerns if they had any. They said "I wouldn't hesitate", "I know that I could talk to the manager or any carer if I had any concerns and I know that they would deal with it"