Beach House

Updated 3 July 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 was planned to check 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.

The inspection took place on 31 May 2018 and was unannounced.

A team of two inspectors inspected Beach House and we gathered information from a variety of sources to plan the inspection. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We also looked at previous inspection reports and notifications received from the provider about incidents that had occurred at the service which the provider has a legal duty to report. Services that provide health and social care to people are required to inform the Care Quality Commission, (CQC), of important events that happen in the service. CQC check that appropriate action had been taken.

Before the inspection we asked for feedback from two local authority commissioners who paid for people’s placements at the service and a care manager and their feedback has been included within this report.

We talked to seven people living at Beach House, we also talked to a relative, three members of staff and the registered manager who is also the provider.

We reviewed three people’s care plans and a variety of documents such as; audits, questionnaires, incident and accident reports, complaints and compliments, health and safety records and certificates, staff rotas and two recruitment files, evidence of supervision and appraisals, the training matrix, medication charts and record books and carried out observations.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 3 July 2018

The inspection was carried out on 31 May 2018 and was unannounced.

Beach 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.

In addition, this service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own flats. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults.

Beach House is residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 9 people. The service is located in an end of terrace property, within a residential area of Birchington-on-Sea, close to the sea front and shops which people visit regularly.

There were eight people living at Beach House. Two others were supported with the regulated activity of personal care and lived in their own flats. Staff provided other support, such as encouraging and helping with cooking and cleaning.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the 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.

The service is run by a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was present on the day of the inspection.

Rating at last inspection

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good

Why the service is rated Good

People at Beach House told us “this place is one in a billion,” “I love it here”.

People at Beach House continued to feel safe. Risks continued to be identified and minimised and people were encouraged to take positive risks to increase their independence and control over their lives. Most people were supported to manage their own money whilst others requested that their finances be managed by staff on their behalf. The system for managing people’s finances was safe.

Staff continued to be recruited safely and people were involved in the interview process. Appropriate checks were made before staff started working with people and a robust induction process was in place to ensure that new staff could provide the care that people needed.

Medicines were managed, stored and disposed of safely and people were encouraged to manage their medicines independently as far as possible.

Staff continued to be up to date with training and the registered manager used a system of checks to monitor staff performance. Systems and processes were in place to learn from mistakes. People told us that there were enough members of staff on duty and this was reflected on staff rotas.

Beach House was decorated in a way that felt homely. It was clean and smelt fresh and people had different areas to go to spend time alone or with others. A log cabin for arts and crafts had been set up since the previous inspection, which proudly displayed people’s models and pieces of art.

People felt relaxed in the company of staff and would freely go to staff if they had any concerns. Staff knew people very well and what action to take if people were unhappy or unwell. The staff team had a close working relationship with a range of healthcare professionals and feedback we received from such professionals were positive.

An active and healthy lifestyle was encouraged by staff, staff knew about people’s needs and could tell us about them in great depth. People were given a choice of meals and went out to ‘Walk and Talk’, which assisted people to exercise, promote wellbeing and gave people the opportunity to discuss any concerns they had.

People felt comfortable talking to staff and shared their ideas and opinions in house meetings and through the complaints procedure which were followed up and actioned by staff. People felt able to discuss their cultural and spiritual needs, as well as what they would like to happen if they reached the end of their lives at the service.

The registered manager led the service by example and continued to build upon an ethos of kindness and mutual respect which was embraced by staff and people alike.

Beach House had a positive and warm environment, people laughed and smiled and told us that Beach House was ‘home.’ Staff were considered friends and they mutually supported and respected one another. People felt that they had enough privacy and that their dignity was upheld at all times and people could lock their bedroom doors if they desired. People were encouraged to maintain relationships with their friends and loved ones and visitors could come and go at any time of the day.

People and their relatives were involved in all aspects of their care and people told us how much their mental health had improved since living at the service. Staff had knowledge of people and their needs and followed best practice guidance to ensure people received the care and treatment they required. When people’s physical or mental health changed, the changes were identified by staff and they worked with health professionals to meet their changing needs.

The registered manager had close relationships with local organisations and attended meetings with other registered managers and healthcare professionals to catch up on best practice. The registered manager also sought the opinions of people living at the service, their relatives and visiting external health professionals. The results of these were analysed and had been used to boost staff morale and as a learning tool.

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.

Services are required to prominently display their CQC performance rating. The provider had displayed the rating in the entrance hall. The registered manager had notified the CQC of events that were reportable.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.