Beaman House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care plans and reviews reflected their individual preferences and needs and what mattered to them. People told us they were happy living at Beaman House because of the way they were supported by their current staff teams. Relatives were positive about the way their individual family member’s needs were met and checked over time. One relative said staff had noticed their family member had started not to enjoy an activity which they previously liked. The relative said, “[Staff] giving a rest, as they noticed [person’s name] was upset last time, so they will try again later.” Staff told us people’s care plans provided them with the information they needed to respond to people’s individual wishes and preferences. A relative told us, “[Person’s name] does get person-centred care, staff adapt what they do to suit him, not to suit them.” Staff told us people’s care plans guided them on how people liked their care to be delivered and said they were encouraged to make suggestions to adapt the care provided to people as their needs and preferences changed. One staff member said, “You can make suggestions about different things [people] might want to do in one to one meetings, for example, going to the hairdressers, or out for coffee.” The staff member gave us an example showing how sensitively senior staff had been when supporting people with different funding, so they still had opportunities to do things they enjoyed. The staff member said, “Because of the way it was handled, [people’s] well-being has improved.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People could live their lives the way they wished because staff provided them with the care they wanted. A person told us they undertook volunteering in a local charity shop, regularly pursued their hobbies outside the home in the evening, and enjoyed going for walks. The person said because of this, “I get to meet lots of different people.” Other people were supported to go to the cinema, cafes, swimming and to do outdoor activities. However, staff recognised some people preferred to spend their time more quietly and privately and supported them to do this. Relatives said there was good continuity of staff, and most relatives said staff supported their family members to spend time in the community. Health and social care professionals told us staff understood the links between good well-being and opportunities and encouragement to do things they enjoyed. Health and social care professionals told us staff worked well with them and colleagues to understand and promote people’s health needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs had been assessed and reviewed over time. Key information was available to people in pictorial formats, to aid people's understanding. Staff recognised people had differing communication skills and preferences. For example, some people directly wrote their monthly key worker reviews, whilst other people wanted staff to work with them to recognise what day to day options or choices they wanted to make.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People said they were asked for their views about their own care, such as what interesting things they wanted to do, and daily life at Beaman House. One person said, “We get to pick the menu and that seems to go quite well". Relatives were positive about how their family members were involved in their care. One relative said of staff, “They do listen to [person’s name].” Systems were in place to ensure staff were prompted to ask people if they had any concerns or wished to share feedback. For example, during regular key worker meetings. Relatives told us they would be confident to raise any concerns or complaints. One relative said, “I would feel happy to raise any concerns, we have a good relationship with staff. You can be a bit apprehensive, but we would and have raised one in the past. It was a very long time ago, they did put it right, they sorted it.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People’s protected characteristics were considered when their care was assessed, planned and delivered. Staff gave examples showing how they adapted people’s care so their protected characteristic relating to their disabilities and well-being needs were met when they cared for people. This included advocating for people, for example, when they wanted access to care from other health and social care professionals with specialisms in physical or mental health. It also included considering over time if the location of their rooms continued to be appropriate and safely meet their needs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. A relative told us, “I feel [person’s name] is being looked after well, they are much calmer now.” Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Relatives told us their family members had improved health outcomes because of the support staff had provided. Staff gave us examples showing how people’s nutrition, well-being and independence had improved because of the care given to them. Staff told us the provider had given them guidance to help recognise people’s unique health and support needs.

The registered manager told us the service was not able to provide complex end of life care to people. The provider had started to gather basic information about people’s future wishes and the actions to be taken by staff to support people. These were referred to in people’s care plans, however, these needed to be expanded to ensure staff fully understood what people’s preferences were, and so these could be communicated to other health and social care professionals appropriately. We fed this back to the registered manager, who confirmed they would start to explore and plan for people’s end of life preferences and advanced wishes.