Beechmore Court

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them and those important to them. Before people moved to Beechmore Court, staff completed clear, detailed pre‑admission assessments and ensured a gradual admission process to support people through the change. Residents and relatives told us they had been involved in planning care which ensured assessments captured people’s interests, histories and cultural needs; staff used these to build care and activity plans. One person said, “The staff understand my needs very well.” People and relatives described assessments and reviews that led to practical adjustments, such as shower equipment to support independence with personal care, and personalised room layouts arranged before admission. One person said, “I was able, through [the registered manager], to have my room just as I wanted it before I came in.” A relative said, “They made me feel that my family member was someone important who matters.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Care records showed comprehensive use of validated assessment tools and professional advice to guide risk assessments and care planning. These evidenced‑based tools helped staff identify risk levels, track changes and adjust care appropriately.

The provider assessed people’s nutrition and hydration needs and put plans in place to meet these. There were effective systems in place to ensure all staff knew about individual eating and drinking guidelines and recommendations in relation to food and drink. Staff received training in fluids, nutrition, and dysphagia. Professionals told us staff were prompt to act when people were at risk of malnutrition. One professional told us they had seen staff “supporting good nutritional intake and implementing food fortification with homemade shakes to prevent further weight loss in those at risk.”

People were asked to choose their main meals the day before. We asked the provider how they ensured this practice did not disadvantage people with cognitive decline who may not remember what they had chosen. The registered manager told us, “Staff are trained to accept any change of mind gracefully and with reassurance. Alternative meals are then offered.” Feedback from people and our observations confirmed people were able to choose alternatives if they did not want the option they had chosen. The registered manager also told us they adapted their approach when needed and presented options using visual aids. They told us, “When a person who we know can benefit from choosing from pictures is living with us we use this method.”

The registered manager kept up to date with best practice in a variety of ways, including attending specialist end of life and dementia courses provided by the local hospice service, and using learning to shape more personalised approaches to people with cognitive impairment.

Partnership working strengthened the evidence‑based approach. Input from a range of healthcare professionals including speech and language therapists, tissue viability nurses, dieticians and mental health teams ensured multidisciplinary review of people’s care plans.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by ensuring staff, teams and services worked together to deliver coordinated support. People receiving care, staff and professionals who worked with the service told us there was a strong culture of working in partnership to achieve excellent outcomes for people.

One professional told us senior staff arranged multi-disciplinary team meetings with GPs, district nurses, social services and families when they had concerns about people’s health and wellbeing. Professionals told us they consistently received “brilliant handovers” when they visited the service and staff always had “a good handle on things” when they arrived. Professionals told us advice given to senior carers or managers was recorded in care plans and shared with the whole team.

The registered manager used different communication methods to ensure all staff were kept up to date with key information and significant changes. The registered manager used daily handovers to provide updates or mini training sessions to refresh staff’s knowledge and understanding. We saw a variety of topics covered in these sessions including, first aid, learning from adverse incidents, moving and handling equipment and infection control. Staff were extremely positive about the culture of teamwork. One member of staff said, “There is a genuine love and friendly, positive attitude within Beechmore Court. The staff support each other at all levels. I think it is a great place to work and feel I am contributing to a greater whole within a great team.”

Effective teamwork was also visible in day‑to‑day practice. During mealtimes we saw care staff and the activities team worked together so people received support with eating and drinking while also being engaged socially.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by supporting them to live healthier lives, including with their physical, mental and social wellbeing.

Feedback from people, relatives and professionals showed care was delivered by staff who understood people’s medical conditions and the day-to-day interventions needed to support their wellbeing. People and relatives described staff who were knowledgeable, attentive and skilled. People were supported to access healthcare services when needed. Care records showed and people confirmed they had access to a range of clinicians including GPs, Dentists, physiotherapists and tissue viability nurses if needed. We received comments such as, “Yes, the staff arrange all outside appointments” and “The appointments are all arranged for me, what a luxury.”

Professionals confirmed staff were skilled in supporting people to maintain good health were alert to early signs of deterioration and acted quickly. Comments included, “They are very knowledgeable and always contact us if they have any concerns” and “Carers are very good at voicing any concerns they may have and have a good rapport with their GP, and I have known them to escalate to the out of hours GP when necessary. The combined evidence from people receiving care and professionals shows staff actively supported people to manage their health and have the best possible quality of life.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by monitoring outcomes and using information to improve the quality of care. Oversight systems were structured, comprehensive and seamlessly integrated into governance cycles. This enabled the service to keep strong visibility of people’s changing needs and to take prompt, proactive action that directly enhanced people’s health and quality of life.

The provider had recently introduced an improved fluid monitoring processes to help track people’s fluid intake and mitigate the risk of dehydration. The registered manager carried out monthly audits of people’s sensory needs to ensure any changes with eyesight or hearing could be identified early and prompt action taken. People’s feedback confirmed the service monitored their needs and adapted care and support as things changed. One relative told us, “[Family member] is needing more and more help and nothing fazes the staff.”

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and recording consent and following the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated guidance. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the MCA. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service.

Where people lacked capacity, care plans typically recorded who should be consulted in their best interests. People and relatives consistently told the us staff sought consent before providing care. Everyone interviewed answered “yes” when asked if staff checked before supporting them. People also told us they were empowered to make day-to-day decisions. One person said, “Staff make sure I choose what I want and help myself as much as possible.”

Staff received Mental Capacity Act (MCA) training and showed a clear understanding of how to apply this to their role. Staff and volunteers described a culture of listening, involvement and putting individuals at the heart of decisions and referred to the principle, “No decision about me without me.” There was a system in place to monitor applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).