You are here

Archived: Beaumont Court Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 23 May 2014
Date of Publication: 26 June 2014
Inspection Report published 26 June 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 23 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the regulations we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

� Is the service caring?

� Is the service responsive?

� Is the service safe?

� Is the service effective?

� Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people were supported by kind and attentive staff who displayed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people, for example by assisting them with personal care. Our observations confirmed that staff promoted independence whilst ensuring that they offered assistance to people when required. People told us that they were happy with the care and support they received from the service. One person said, "I like it, I am enjoying it" and "It's a grand place to live it is".

People�s diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people�s wishes. Staff were fully aware of people's care and support needs.

People told us and staff confirmed they pursued activities within the community and this was evident during our inspection when people told us they had returned from gardening sessions and day centres. The provider promoted people's well-being.

Is the service responsive?

People's care needs and any potential risks that they may be exposed to were assessed before they received care and support from the provider. The provider had arrangements in place to review people's care records regularly and we saw that amendments were made to people's documentation as their needs changed, to ensure this remained accurate and any issues were promptly addressed.

Staff told us, and records showed that where people required input into their care from external healthcare professionals, such as dieticians or doctors, or where, for example, their weight or behaviours needed to be monitored, they received this care.

There was an effective complaints system in place and we found that people felt confident in raising concerns with staff or the manager.

Is the service safe?

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager confirmed that no people who lived at the home at the time of our inspection were subject to a DoLS. We discussed with the manager the recent Supreme Court judgement handed down on March 2014 in the case of 'P v Cheshire West and Chester Council and another' and 'P and Q v Surrey County Council', about what constitutes a deprivation of liberty. The manager confirmed their understanding of DoLS and mental capacity. The manager told us that they were currently in discussions with their local safeguarding team in light of this judgement, for further advice on their responsibilities and the arrangements they now need to put in place, for people in their care.

People's care needs had been assessed and their care records showed that risk assessments were in place to reduce the chances of them coming to any harm, whilst living their lives as independently and fully as possible. Where necessary, the provider had drafted a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) for people who lived at the home, to ensure that staff had instruction on how to evacuate them from the building, for example, in the event of a fire or a flood.

We reviewed the safeguarding policy and procedures in place to address and manage incidences of a safeguarding nature. We found that these arrangements were both appropriate and safe. Staff and management were able to give us examples of different types of harm and abuse, and they confirmed how they would report and progress any safeguarding matters brought to their attention.

We reviewed the arrangements in place for the management of medicines including how medicines were stored, administered and disposed of when no longer required. We found that these arrangements were both appropriate and safe. Staff were trained in the safe handling and administration of medication.

We found that entry into the building was secure. People were cared for in a safe, clean and hygienic environment. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home and a member of the management team was available on call for support and in the event of an emergency. Health and safety checks, maintenance and checks on the utility supplies within the home were carried regularly.

Is the service effective?

People told us they were happy with the staff who cared for them and they met their needs. One person said, "The staff are nice." Another person told us, "I am enjoying it, they are good the staff." It was evident from speaking with staff and through our own observations that staff had a good knowledge of the people they cared for and their needs.

People�s needs were taken into account with pictorial information available to them and adaptations made to the environment to enable them to move around the home safely and independently.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. Our observations on the day of our inspection highlighted and records showed, that the provider worked in conjunction with, for example, social workers and doctors to get people's care right.

An effective quality assurance system was in place which helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times, by monitoring care and addressing shortfalls promptly. The provider monitored care delivery by staff and gathered the views of people and their relatives about the service they received.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The provider had a range of policies and procedures in place which gave direction and instruction to staff. Staff meetings were held monthly and a number of health and safety checks were carried out regularly. In addition, accidents, incidents and safeguarding matters were monitored regularly, to ensure care delivery was appropriate.