You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 January 2018

Beaufort House is a care home providing accommodation, personal care and support for up to seven adults who have a learning disability, physical disability or mental health conditions. There were six people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

At the last inspection on 6 October 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of appropriately skilled staff to meet their needs and keep them safe. Robust recruitment procedures were followed to ensure only suitable staff were employed. Staff understood their responsibilities in safeguarding people from abuse and knew how to report any concerns they had.

Risks to people’s safety were identified and action taken to keep people as safe as possible. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and measures implemented to reduce the risk of them happening again. Health and safety and fire safety checks were carried out regularly to ensure the home was safe and well maintained. The provider had developed a contingency plan to ensure that people’s care would continue in the event of an emergency.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Staff maintained appropriate standards of hygiene and cleanliness and followed safe infection control procedures.

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home to ensure staff could provide the support they required. Staff had the training and support they needed to carry out their roles effectively. All staff attended an induction when they started work and had access to ongoing training. Specific training was provided if people developed needs that required it. The provider supported staff to achieve further qualifications relevant to their roles.

People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were respected. Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to their care and how people communicated their decisions. People who lacked capacity received appropriate support when decisions that affected them were made. The provider ensured that all relevant people were consulted to ensure decisions were made in people’s best interests. Applications for DoLS authorisations had been submitted where restrictions were imposed upon people to keep them safe,

People were able to make choices about the food they ate and were supported to maintain a healthy diet. Staff ensured that individual support guidelines around diet and nutrition were followed. People were supported to maintain good health and to obtain treatment when they needed it. Staff were observant of any changes in people’s healthcare needs and responded promptly if they became unwell. Each person had a health action plan which detailed their health needs and the support they needed.

The home provided bright and spacious accommodation. People had been encouraged to choose the décor and were able to personalise their bedrooms. Equipment and adaptations were in place to meet people’s mobility needs.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them and there was a homely, caring atmosphere in the home. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity. They respected people’s individual rights and promoted their independence. People were supported to make choices about their care and to maintain relationships with their friends and families.

People received care that was personalised to their individual needs. Support plans reflected people’s needs, preferences and ambition

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 January 2018

The service remains Good.

There were always enough staff deployed to meet people�s needs and keep them safe.

People were supported to take risks as safely as possible.

Staff understood their roles in keeping people safe.

People would continue to receive care in the event of an emergency.

People were protected by the provider�s recruitment procedures.

Medicines were managed safely.

People were protected from the risk of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 January 2018

The service remains Good.

People�s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home to ensure their needs could be met.

Staff had access to the support, supervision and training they needed to support people effectively.

People�s care was provided in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were encouraged to maintain a healthy diet and staff were aware of any dietary restrictions.

People�s healthcare needs were monitored and they were supported to obtain treatment when they needed it.

The physical environment of the home met people�s needs and equipment and adaptations were in place where necessary.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 January 2018

The service remains Good.

People received compassionate care from staff who knew their needs well.

People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them.

Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity.

People were encouraged to make choices about their lives and to be involved in planning their care.

Staff supported people in a way that promoted their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 January 2018

The service remains Good.

People received care that reflected their individual needs and preferences.

People had access to activities they enjoyed.

People were involved in their local community.

People were confident that they would receive a positive response if they raised concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 January 2018

The service remains Good.

The registered manager provided good leadership for the service.

People were encouraged to give their views and the provider responded positively to feedback.

Quality monitoring systems ensured people received safe and effective care and support.

Staff shared important information about people�s needs effectively.

Records were well organised and up to date.