You are here

Archived: Beaumont Court Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 26 January 2017

During a routine inspection

Beaumont Court is a residential care home based in Prudhoe, Northumberland which provides accommodation and personal care and support, for up to eight people with learning and/or physical disabilities. There were seven people in receipt of care from the service at the time of our visit.

This inspection took place on the 26 and 27 January 2017 and was unannounced.

The last inspection we carried out at this service was in October 2015 at which the provider was found to be in breach of three of the regulations namely safeguarding people from abuse and improper treatment, staffing and good governance. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider had complied with the legal requirements of all three of the aforementioned regulations.

A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection who had been registered with the Commission to manage the carrying on of the regulated activity since August 2016. 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.

People who were able to talk with us told us they felt safe living at the service. Relatives confirmed they had no concerns about their family member's care or how they were treated by staff. Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place for staff to follow and records showed that historic safeguarding cases had been dealt with appropriately.

Staffing levels had improved since our last inspection and permanent members of staff had been recruited. Staff and relatives told us this had led to more consistent care being delivered. Staff support had improved also in that staff were appropriately inducted, supervised and appraised. The training that staff needed to fulfil their roles had been reviewed and staff training had been brought up to date in key areas. Training In other topics relevant to the needs of the individual people whom the staff team supported, was planned to be completed in the near future.

Recruitment procedures remained robust, as they had been at our last inspection visit. Medicines continued to be managed safely and any medicines related issues were picked up promptly and addressed through the provider's quality assurance systems.

Risks that people were exposed to in their daily lives were assessed and regularly reviewed to protect people's safety. Environmental risks were well managed and emergency planning had been considered. Accidents and incidents were responded to appropriately. Analysis of accidents and incidents took place so that measures could be put in place to prevent repeat events.

People's needs were met and staff displayed a good overarching knowledge of how to support people, their behaviours, likes and dislikes. People and staff enjoyed good relationships and there was a calm happy atmosphere within the home. Medical attention from external healthcare professionals was sought in a timely manner whenever necessary.

Staff maintained people's privacy and dignity and encouraged them to be as independent as possible. People had choices about how they lived their lives and they were all active within the local community, for example, by attending day centres and going horse riding regularly.

CQC monitors the application of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and deprivation of liberty safeguards. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) was appropriately applied and the provider had submitted applications to the local authority to deprive people of their liberty lawfully, to prevent them from coming to any harm where they lacked capacity. The service understood their legal responsibility under this act and they assessed people’s capacity when their care commenced and on an on-going basis when necessary. Decisions that needed to be made i

Inspection carried out on 2 and 6 October 2015

During a routine inspection

Beaumont Court is a care home situated in Prudhoe, Northumberland which provides personal care and support for up to eight people with learning and physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were seven people in receipt of care from the service. Our last inspection of this service took place in May 2014 when we found the provider was meeting all of the five regulations assessed at that time.

The inspection took place on 2 and 6 October 2015 and was unannounced.

There was a manager in post but they had not registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The manager told us this was because the previous manager, who left the service early in 2015, had not formally deregistered themselves with CQC as the manager of the service and they were waiting for this to happen first. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

People appeared comfortable in the presence of staff and we saw they enjoyed good positive relationships. Safeguarding procedures were in place to protect people from abuse and there were channels through which staff could raise concerns.

People’s needs and the risks that they were exposed to in their daily lives were assessed, and these were regularly reviewed. Regular health and safety checks were carried out on the building and aspects of care delivery, to ensure that the people, staff and visitors remained safe.

Medicines were managed safely with appropriate systems in place in respect of the administration, storage, ordering, disposal and handling of medicines. Recruitment processes were thorough and included checks to ensure that staff employed were of good character and suitable for the role to which they would be employed.

We found concerns with the numbers of permanent staff employed and a high reliance on the use of agency staff. The manager told us that recruitment was underway. We found disgruntlement amongst the staff team which had not been identified by the manager and therefore not addressed. Staff training had fallen behind in key areas such as safeguarding and staff had not been provided with training specific to the needs of people that they supported. Supervisions had fallen behind for some staff and appraisals had not been completed.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. MCA is a law that protects and supports people who do not have ability to make their own decisions and to ensure decisions are made in their ‘best interests’ and it also ensures that unlawful restrictions are not placed on people in care homes and hospitals. The manager told us that no applications had been made to the local authority safeguarding team to assess whether people needed deprivation of liberty safeguards to be put in place. The ‘best interest’ decision process was followed in practice, but these decisions were not always fully documented within people’s care records. The manager gave their assurances that records held in relation to this would be improved. This meant the provider was not adhering to their responsibilities under the MCA 2005.

People’s general healthcare needs were met and where there had been any concerns about their care, or a change in their needs, external healthcare support had been requested. People’s care plans and risk assessments had been regularly reviewed and where necessary, amended accordingly. People’s nutritional and hydration needs were met.

Our observations confirmed people experienced care and support that protected their privacy, dignity and where possible, promoted their independence. Staff displayed caring and compassionate attitudes towards people and they enjoyed good relationships. Individualised care records were available for staff to follow and they were very aware of people’s diverse needs and how to deliver effective, personalised care. People enjoyed regular activities within their daily lives and they were supported to enter the community safely.

Systems were in place to monitor the service provided and care delivered. The manager told us that a newly appointed compliance team in the provider’s head office were looking to introduce improved auditing systems. Although we noted the provider had some good systems in place, they had failed to identify the issues that we found at our inspection relating to the application of the MCA 2005 and staffing, or where they had been identified, they had not been appropriately addressed. In addition, the management of the service had not been appropriately addressed in line with the requirements of Regulation 5 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009, in that the provider had not ensured that a suitable ‘registered person’ had formally registered themselves with CQC as the registered manager of this service. This matter is being followed up separately with the provider, outside of the inspection process.

We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 related to staffing, safeguarding service users from abuse or improper treatment and good governance. You can find the action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

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.

Inspection carried out on 24 May 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us they were happy living at Beaumont Court and their care needs were met. One person said, "I like living here, yes I do, yes." Another person told us, "I like it here and the staff are alright."

People told us their consent was obtained before care was delivered and staff acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent we found the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

We found that people's care needs were assessed and their care and treatment was planned. People received care which reduced the risk of poor nutrition and dehydration. Where necessary external healthcare professionals had been consulted about people's dietary concerns.

We saw that people had enough equipment available to enable them to maintain their independence as much as possible and this equipment was suitably maintained.

We found the provider had a structured staff selection and recruitment policy in place which aimed to ensure staff were suitably skilled, experienced and qualified to deliver care safely.

At this inspection we also checked whether previous shortfalls in the management of cleanliness and infection, and the maintenance of records had been addressed. These issues had been identified during our last inspection at the service on 29 October 2012. We found improvements had been made and the risks associated with infection and the maintenance of records had been reduced.

Inspection carried out on 29 October 2012

During a routine inspection

Due to the nature of their condition, some people were unable to communicate with us verbally on the day of our inspection. People who could, told us they were happy with the care and support they received from Beaumont Court. We found that people's care and support needs were appropriately assessed and their care was planned. One person said, "I like it here, they care for me well. I tell them things and they sort it for me." Another comment made was, "Staff treat me well and care for me well."

We found that staff were appropriately trained and the service had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service that it provided. However, although people who received care and support told us they were happy and we saw they were well supported, we found that failures to maintain records appropriately may put people at risk of receiving inappropriate care and treatment. In addition, failures to manage cleanliness and infection control may put people and others, such as staff and visitors, at risk of catching a healthcare associated infection.

Inspection carried out on 31 October 2011

During a routine inspection

People spoken with said they were happy living in the home. One person said they were very settled and they felt safe there. Another person said they liked their bedroom and that they thought it was lovely.They also said they got on well with the staff. People also said they enjoyed going out.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)