You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 March 2018

We inspected Beechville on the 24 January 2018. The inspection was unannounced. Beechville is owned by Methodist Homes (MHA) which is a charity providing care, accommodation and support.

Beechville is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Beechville is registered to provide accommodation for up to 63 older people who require personal care. Some of the people were living with dementia. There were 61 people using the service at the time of the inspection. The home is a two storey purpose built home situated in its own grounds in a residential area of Lostock, Bolton. The home is on the main road that connects the towns of Horwich and Bolton. There is adequate car parking at the front of the home.

We last inspected Beechville on 21 August 2015 and the service was rated as good.

The registered manager had left the home in January 2018. A new manager from another of the Methodist Homes had been appointed. In the interim period the home was being managed by the Area Support Manager (ASM) who was available to facilitate the inspection. The ASM had been at the home for two weeks. The ASM had experience of managing a care home.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

On arrival at the home there are two sets of doors before people enter the large, comfortable reception area. The reception area has a coffee bar and is used for activities.

The service used the local authority safeguarding procedures to report any safeguarding concerns. Staff had been trained in safeguarding topics and were aware of their responsibilities to report any possible abuse.

Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured new staff should be safe to work with vulnerable adults.

The administration of medicines was safe. Staff had been trained in the administration of medicines and had up to date policies and procedures to follow.

The home was clean, tidy and fresh. The environment was maintained at an excellent level and homely in character.

There were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection. Staff were trained in infection control and provided with the necessary equipment and hand washing facilities. However the infection control nurse who was at the home at the time of the inspection found areas of concern with regard to some poor practice. Most of these were addressed by the end of the inspection.

Electrical and gas appliances were serviced regularly. Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP). A PEEP informs the fire service what room people live in and what assistance they require to evacuate them safely.

People were offered a well balanced and nutritional diet and encouraged to eat and drink to ensure they were hydrated and well fed.

Staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The ASM was aware of her responsibilities of how to apply for any best interest decisions under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and followed the correct procedures using independent professionals.

New staff received induction training to provide them with the skills to care for people. Staff files and the training matrix showed staff had undertaken sufficient training to meet the needs of people and they were supervised regularly to check their competence. Supervision sessions also gave staff the opportunity to discuss their work and ask for any training they felt necessary.

We observed there were good interactions between staff and people who used the service. People told us st

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 March 2018

The service was safe.

We found that sufficient numbers of staff were available to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

A safe system of staff recruitment was in place and suitable arrangements were in place to help safeguard people from abuse.

People’s medicines were administered safely and offered to them as prescribed. Staff were trained and assessed as competent to administer medication.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 March 2018

The service was effective.

Systems were in place to ensure staff received regular support and supervision.

Staff were able to demonstrate their understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Care plans contained detailed information to inform staff of people’s health and social care needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 March 2018

The service was caring.

People spoke positively of the kindness and caring attitude of the staff. We saw that staff treated people with dignity, respect and patience.

People told us they felt communication within the home was good, that they were kept informed and felt involved.

We saw that people's religious and cultural needs were respected.

There was a service user guide that provided information to people about the home and the facilities offered.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 March 2018

The service was responsive

People's care records contained detailed information to guide staff on the care and support required.

People were free to make choices about how wanted to live their life. There was a wide and varied range of activities planned.

Suitable arrangements were in place for reporting and responding to any complaints or concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 March 2018

The service was well-led

The registered manager had recently left the home. A new manager had been appointed. In the interim period the home was being managed by the ASM.

A range of audits were in place to monitor the health, safety and welfare of people who lived at the home.

The service had clear lines of accountability. Staff understood their role and were committed to providing a good standard of support for people in their care.