Archived: Beech Dene Residential Care Home

Beech Dene residential home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to a maximum of 35 people some of who may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 34 people living at the home.

People’s experience of using this service:

People did not always receive safe support with their medicines. Medicine records were incomplete and in some instances the directions for their use was missing.

The provider did not complete regular checks to ensure people received their topical creams as expected. However, staff members had been trained and assessed as competent to support people.

People were at risk of communicable illnesses as the provider had not imbedded effective infection prevention and control systems.

Risks to people, associated with where they lived, had not always been effectively identified or mitigated. However, the provider had assessed risks to people associated with their care and support.

People were not always supported by enough staff members so meet their needs in a timely way.

The provider did not have effective quality monitoring systems in place to identify and drive good care.

People were protected from ill treatment and abuse as the staff team had been trained to recognise potential signs of abuse and understood what to do to safely support people.

Staff members were aware of the necessary action they should take in the event of an emergency.

The provider supported staff in providing effective care for people through person-centred care planning, training and one-to-one supervision. Staff members were knowledgeable about the relevant legislations that informed their practice and supported the rights of those receiving services at Beech Dene.

People were supported to have choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems supported this practice.

People were supported to access additional healthcare services when required.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet by a staff team who knew their individual preferences.

People received help and support from a kind and compassionate staff team with whom they had positive relationships.

People were supported by staff members who were aware of their individual protected characteristics like age, gender and disability.

People were provided with information in a way they could understand. The provider had systems in place to encourage and respond to any complaints or compliments from people or those close to them.

The provider, and management team, had good links with the local communities within which people lived. The provider had systems in place to ensure the Care Quality Commission was notified of significant events in a timely manner and in accordance with their registration.

More information in Detailed Findings below.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection Beech Dene was rated ‘Good’ (Published 9 December 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection, ‘Good.’

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor all intelligence received about the service to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 22 November 2016. At our last inspection visit on 26 August 2015 we asked the provider to make improvements to all aspects of the service we inspected. The provider sent us an action plan in September 2015, explaining the actions they would take to make improvements. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made. The service was registered to provide accommodation for up to 35 people. People who used the service had physical health needs and/or were living with dementia. At the time of our inspection 33 people were using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 were supported to make choices, however the assessments did not always reflect the person’s level of understanding in different situations. There were sufficient staff to support people’s needs and staff had undergone a range of checks to ensure they were suitable to work in the home. The manager and provider completed a range of audits to support the improvements within the home. We saw feedback was sought from people and any areas raised had been considered and responded to.

People told us and we saw they had established positive relationships with people. Staff respected people’s choices and offered a range of choices the person was able to manage. Staff maintained people’s privacy and dignity at all times. There was a positive meal experience where people were able to choose the meals they wished to eat and alternatives were provided.

We saw that medicines were managed safely and administered in line with people’s prescriptions. Referrals had been made to health care professionals and people had access to a range of health care professionals to maintain their health needs.

The care plans covered all aspects of people’s care and their preferences. There was a clear process in place to cascade information about the service and the needs of people. People were able to choose how they spent their time and were encouraged to join activities. Any complaints had been addressed and responded to.

Staff felt supported by the manager and they were provided with suitable training for their role. We saw that the previous rating was conspicuously displayed in the reception of the home as required. The manager understood their responsibility of registration with us and notified us of important events that occurred at the service; this meant we could check appropriate action had been taken.

We saw that people had consented to their care and support. Where people did not have capacity to make decisions for themselves we saw that best interest meetings had been held with professional from outside the service.

The service cooperated with the wider health community to ensure people received care support appropriate to their needs.

Medicines were not always administered in a way which ensured people were kept safe.

The provider had a recruitment system which ensured only people of good character and suitably skilled were employed to provide care.

Care plans were completed in a way which enabled staff to deliver appropriate care. Risk assessments were completed and reviewed regularly. Records of staff and managerial systems were completed and reviewed.

We saw that people were included in making decisions and that their views on their care were respected. People we spoke with told us, "We can do as much or as little as we want to do. I like to be occupied and have many interests". Another person said, "I was spoken with about what to expect when I came here, and so far I've been happy things".

We saw the care records included all the relevant information about how people needed to be supported and how risks had been assessed. People and relatives told us they were included in discussions about care and were informed of any concerns.

Staff understood their responsibilities to recognise and protect people from the risk of potential abuse. Complaints processes were in place and people and relatives we spoke with confirmed that they knew how to make a complaint.

Staff had access to the training they needed but not all had completed relevant training at the time of our inspection. This may mean that staff didn't have the skills to meet people's needs.

The provider monitored the quality of the service to ensure that people continued to receive a good standard of care, support and treatment.