Beaman House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Relatives told us if they provided feedback on areas of learning, staff adjusted how they cared for people. Staff told us they were encouraged to reflect on their own practice and told us there were opportunities to do this during regular meetings to review people’s care and incidents at the service. One staff member said learning had been taken when one person was anxious when they were in pain. The staff member told us, “I learn something to enhance their lives every day, you learn about the people.” Staff understood their role in escalating any incidents. The registered manager reviewed all incidents at the home, and considered if there were any patterns emerging, which required changes in how people were cared for.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Relatives gave examples showing how staff had taken appropriate action to obtain support for their family members, when they wanted assistance from other services. This included staff continuing to support their family members with emergency and routine health and well-being appointments. External professionals told us the service supported transitions safely and effectively, taking into account any advice they had provided. Systems were in place to communicate essential information about people’s needs to other health and social care professionals. This helped to ensure people would continue to receive the care they wanted, safely.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider understood their responsibility to share concerns quickly and appropriately, should they occur. People were at ease with the staff caring for them, and relative were confident their family members were treated well and their safety needs supported. One relative told us, “[Staff] would definitely do the best they could to sort it out any problems.” Staff had received training in safeguarding and understood what action they needed to take to protect people. A system had not been put in place for the registered manager to report these to the board of trustees. However, the registered manager told us they would be able to obtain support from the board of trustees, and other health and social care professionals, should this be required.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People were supported to understand risks to their safety through discussions with staff. We saw people reflected on the advice they had been given, so they would remain as safe as possible. For example, a person took time to use the stairs, so they would be able to do this safely. A relative told us how staff had worked with their family member to reduce their risks when they travelled. Staff understood people's individual risks and how to respond to these. People's care plans provided staff with the guidance they needed to mitigate people's risks. For example, in relation to choking, sudden and significant decline in their physical health, falls, and risks in relation to people experiencing anxiety.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment and made sure facilities supported the delivery of safe care. People told us they valued the privacy and comfort afforded by their rooms, which had recently been re-decorated based on people’s choices and preferences. However, some further maintenance of the home was required. For example, there was damage to plaster on one of the walls in the communal lounge. The registered manager told us they would address this without delay. Most premises and safety checks were working more effectively, for example, checks undertaken to ensure the temperature and safety of water was consistently maintained. Staff had also ensured they communicated any concerns relating to the safety of the home to people and staff. This included a narrow and steep staircase. This helped to mitigate these risks.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. People told us there had been changes to the staff team supporting them and this had led to improvements in their care and relationships with staff. Relatives were positive about staffing levels and the skills and knowledge of the staff supporting their family members. One relative told us, “There is only ever one staff on when we visit, but they cope alright and have everything organised.” Another relative said, “Defiantly, the staff we have there now have the training they need. They understand [person’s name].” Staff told us there was enough staff to care for people and meet their safety needs. Staff received training when they first started working at the home and gave examples showing how additional training was arranged. This was to meet people’s changing needs and for their own professional development. One staff member said, “I was offered management training, and I decided to take this up.” Systems were in place to check the suitability of staff before they commenced employment. Staff were supported to provide good care to people through on-going supervisions and checks on their staff practice.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. The home presented as clean. Staff had received training in infection prevention and guidance was displayed in key areas of the home to advise staff on actions they should take to reduce the spread of infections. Senior staff undertook checks on staff’s infection prevention practice, so they could be assured people received safe care. However, these checks had not identified some porous surfaces and areas of chipped paintwork, which make these areas difficult to clean. We spoke to the registered manager about this. The gave us assurances action would be taken to address this without delay.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People told us staff talked with them about their medicines. One person told us staff had involved them in reviewing their medicines, and they now felt less anxious because their medicines had been changed. The person said, “It’s made me feel a lot better and it has helped a lot.” Relatives said they could rely on staff making sure people had the medicines they needed, including when people had extended visits to their families. Staff were not allowed to administer medicines until they had been trained to do this, and their competency was checked. One staff member told us additional training was being arranged with other health and social care professionals, as a new type of medicine had been prescribed for a person living at the home. Staff understood what action to take, should an error occur when they administered people’s medicines. Staff were provided with the information required to promote the safe administration of people’s medicines. Protocols were in place for staff to follow where people required ‘as and when’ medicines. Senior staff undertook checks on the administration and storage of people’s medicines, so they could be sure they had received these as prescribed. The registered manager told us they intended to continue to review the safety of people’s medicines administration, in light of the introduction of a new type of medicines for one person. The registered manager also planned to further develop procedures for transferring people’s medicines when people had extended periods of time away from the home.