Beechmore Court

We found the following examples of good practice.

The provider had adapted a conservatory to include a visiting pod with an intercom, allowing family and friends to visit without entering the main building. People were supported to see their visitors in the garden, or to speak to their families on the phone or via video call. The provider had introduced virtual consultations to reduce the need for external visitors to the home.

The premises had been adapted to support zoning measures.

The provider had arrangements in place to test both people and staff for COVID-19, in line with the current guidelines on testing.

The provider had clear protocols for people who were infected with COVID-19, and for people who had been admitted to the home from hospital or the community. Staff were adhering to PPE and social distancing guidance.

Staff who were more vulnerable to COVID-19 were supported and risk assessed to ensure staff and people remained safe.

Beechmore Court is a residential care home that provides care and support for up to 36 older people who may have dementia care needs. At the time of our inspection the home was providing care and support to 34 people. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time of our inspection 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.

Risks to people were assessed, recorded and managed safely by staff. Medicines were managed, administered and stored safely. People were protected from the risk of abuse, because staff were aware of the types of abuse and the action to take. There were systems in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of infection. Accidents and incidents were recorded and acted on appropriately. There were safe staff recruitment practices in place and appropriate numbers of staff were deployed to meet people’s needs.

There were processes in place to ensure staff were inducted into the service appropriately. Staff received training, supervision and appraisals that enabled them to fulfil their roles effectively. Staff were aware of the importance of seeking consent and demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This provides protection for people who do not have capacity to make decisions for themselves. People’s nutritional needs and preferences were met. People had access to health and social care professionals when required.

People told us staff treated them well and respected their privacy and dignity. People were involved in making decisions about their care and had care plans which reflected their needs and preferences. There was a range of activities available to meet people’s interests. The service provided care and support to people at the end of their lives. People’s needs were reviewed and monitored on a regular basis. People were provided with information on how to make a complaint. The service worked with health and social care professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. People’s views about the service were sought and considered. People, relatives and staff spoke positively of the management and the running of the home.

Beechmore Court is a residential care home providing care and support for up to 36 people. The home is located in the London borough of Bromley in Kent. At the time of our inspection the home was providing care and support to 34 people. The home had 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.

There were suitable safeguarding adult’s policies and procedures in place to protect people from possible harm. People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had received appropriate support and training which enabled them to identify abuse and take appropriate actions to report and escalate concerns.

Assessments were completed regarding the levels of risk to people’s physical and mental health which ensured staff had information and guidance they needed to promote people’s health, safety and welfare whilst ensuring known risks were reduced or minimised. Care plans contained personalised emergency evacuation plans for individuals. Staff knew what to do in the event of a fire and who to contact.

Accidents and incidents involving the safety of people using the service and staff were recorded, managed and acted on appropriately. There were safe staff recruitment practices in place and appropriate recruitment checks were conducted before staff started work to ensure they were suitable to be employed in a social care environment. There were enough staff to ensure people’s needs were met at any given time. Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely.

There were processes in place to ensure staff new to the home had appropriate skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care. Staff completed training on a regular basis that was relevant to the needs of people using the service. There were systems in place which ensured the service complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This provides protection for people who do not have capacity to make decisions for themselves. People were supported to eat and drink suitable healthy foods and sufficient amounts to meet their needs and ensure well-being. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to a range of health and social care professionals when required.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and could describe peoples’ preferences in how they liked to be supported. Staff treated people in a respectful, dignified and caring manner. People were provided with appropriate information that met their needs and were supported to understand the care and support choices available to them.

People were assessed prior to moving in to the home to ensure the service was the right environment for them and that the service could meet their individual needs. People received care and treatment in accordance with their identified needs and wishes. People were supported to engage in a range of activities that met their needs and reflected their interests. There was a complaints policy and procedure in place and people were provided with information on how to make a complaint.

The home and provider took account of people’s views with regard to the service provided through satisfaction surveys that were carried out on an annual basis. There were systems and processes in place to monitor and evaluate the quality of the service provided.

At the time of our inspection there were 36 people residing at the home. As part of this inspection we spoke with two people who used the service, five relatives, the registered manager and three care staff. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the home which included four care plans and four staff files.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

There were detailed care plans for each person who used the service. Care plans had been reviewed. There was a senior member of staff on duty at all times to deal with emergencies. Staff had emergency first aid training.

Is the service effective?

The service undertook assessments with the person who used the service or a relative to identify their support needs. There were nutrition risk assessments in place and people had the opportunity to choose from a nutritious menu.

Is the service caring?

People who used the service or a relative had been involved in decisions about their care and support. Staff supported people and advised them, but allowed the person who used the service to make the final decision. Staff told us, "We always ask [people who used the service] what they want." A person who used the service told us, 'They are patient and kind.'

Is the service responsive?

The service liaised with other health professionals to meet the needs of people who used the service. People's individual needs had been assessed and staff were aware of their needs. People who used the service knew how to make a complaint, however none had been made in the past year.

Is the service well-led?

The service was using the skills and knowledge of staff members to provide the required service to meet people's needs. Staff meetings were being held regularly and the staff we spoke with confirmed they felt able to make suggestions and voice concerns. There were processes to monitor and improve the quality of service delivery.

We found that people were treated with respect and dignity, their wishes were taken in to account in most cases and they were consulted with about decisions related to their care. We found that care and treatment was planned in accordance with people's needs and the provider worked with other health and care professionals to ensure people received safe care. However we found that records were not accurate in all cases and the provider did not follow suitable recruitment procedures for all staff.