Beaman House

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 assessment 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 75 (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. People's support requirements were assessed by senior staff before they joined the service. People’s needs continued to be reviewed as their needs changed. Relatives told us they had been involved in the assessment process. One relative said, “[Staff] asked me about what care [person’s name] wanted and what their preferences were.” The relative said staff kept in touch, and subsequently checked, “How I felt [person’s name] was getting on.” All staff had opportunities to be involved in the initial and on-going assessment processes. One staff member told us, “We have assessment meetings to get to know someone before they join Beaman House, and so they get the chance to know us. In these meetings we will cover all aspects [of care wanted] but mainly it is introducing myself and finding out what someone likes, [such as their] food preferences, and what they don't like.” This information was used to develop people’s care plans and reviews, so people's wishes, choices and changing needs were addressed.

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. People were encouraged to have enough to eat and drink as staff offered them a range of choices based on people’s individual preferences. Staff checked people were having enough to eat and drink. Relatives and staff gave us examples showing how people’s diet had been adjusted after illness, so they would successfully regain the weight they needed to be well. One relative told us, “About a year ago [person’s name] went on a special diet to build them up.” People’s care plans contained guidance for staff to follow to ensure people were assisted to eat and drink safely.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people when people moved between different services. People said staff supported them to get treatment other health services when they wanted it. One person said, “Staff would arrange a doctor for me." Relatives told us they could rely on staff seeing if there was any change in their family member’s health and well-being and seeking help for their family members. One relative said, “They [staff] would definitely get an ambulance or the GP, they soon get in touch with someone if [person’s name] needs it.” The relative also said if any support from external health and social care professionals was needed this was promptly identified and arranged because, “[Staff] work really well together across the staff teams.” Staff were positive about arrangements put in place to assist them to work across teams and the information provided to them from colleagues about people’s health and well-being at the start of each shift. A health professional told us, “When there have been concerns with [people] admitted to hospital, [senior staff] have been available, attended the ward, been involved throughout and took my professional advice and guidance.” Staff also supported people when they wanted access to routine health appointments, such as with their GPs and dentists. Systems for communicating essential information about people’s health needs and preferences were in place, such as hospital passports and health action plans.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. People were encouraged and supported to make healthier choices to help promote and maintain their health. People were offered a varied choice of meals, snacks and activities to support their health and well-being. Staff gave examples showing how offering guidance and healthy alternatives had led to a decrease in some people choosing sugary snacks. Staff understood the links between people’s well-being and physical health. A health and social care professional told us staff took appropriate preventative action to help people lead healthier lives. The health and social care professional said, “[People] have a great social life and are happy in their presentation.” Staff gave examples showing how they had gradually encouraged people to take up gentle exercise, and both their physical health and well-being had improved.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People told us staff carefully monitored their health and well-being and escalated any concerns to their GPs and other health and social care professionals. One person told us staff had supported them to see other health professionals which had improved their well-being.” Relatives said they could rely on staff to take appropriate action to identify changes in their family member’s health and to obtain assistance for them when needed. Staff gave examples showing how they had noticed changes in people’s health and changes in their eating patterns and had sought input from other health and social care professionals, such as dentists, so people would receive the treatment they wanted. Processes were in place to monitor key aspects of people’s individual health. For example, bowel monitoring charts.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. However, the process for recording of some decisions taken in people’s best interests needed further development. Staff checked people were consenting to the care offered before providing it. Relatives were positive about the way staff promoted choice and took action to support their family member’s decisions. One relative told us, “[Staff] wouldn’t force [person’s name] to do anything. [Person’s name] knows his own mind. Staff recognised when people needed more support to make their own decisions. One staff member said, “We always talk [person’s name] through what we are going to do before we do it. They understand what is being asked, and they will make it very clear on what they want and what they don’t want.” Another staff member told us, “[People] do have the right to make unwise decisions.” The staff member explained how they had worked with one person, by explaining the possible risks and encouraging them to consider alternative options, which had successfully mitigated risks they had experienced. People’s care records confirmed if any other person had the right to make some decisions on their behalf. However, decisions taken in people’s best interests were usually recorded in people’s care notes at the time of the inspection. The registered manager agreed to review their systems to ensure people’s capacity assessments, and the outcome of best interest assessments, were consistently clear. The provider had appropriately made application to the supervisory body, where deprivation of liberty safeguards needed to be authorised.