We carried out a review of the data available to us about Beech House - Halesworth on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Beech House - Halesworth, you can give feedback on this service.
Beech House – Halesworth is a residential care home providing personal care to 44 older people at the time of the inspection. Some of these people were living with dementia. The service can support up to 49 people in one adapted building.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
There were systems in place designed to reduce risks to people. This included assessing risks and providing guidance for staff in how these were to be reduced. Staffing levels were calculated to provide people with the care and support they needed. Recruitment of staff was done safely. Infection control processes reduced the risks of cross infection. Medicines were managed safely.
The service had systems in place to assess and monitor the service people received. This supported the registered manager and provider to identify potential shortfalls and address them. There was an open culture in the service and people using the service, relatives, visitors and staff were encouraged to share their views about the service. Lessons were learned, for example from incidents and people’s comments, and these were used to drive improvement.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 2 September 2017).
Why we inspected
The focused inspection was prompted in part by notification of a specific incident. Following which a person using the service died. This incident is subject to investigation. As a result, this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident. A decision was made to inspect the key questions Safe and Well-led only to assess if there were overall risks to people using the service and if the provider had governance systems in place. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.
We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the Safe and Well-led sections of this report. The overall rating for the service has not changed and remains good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Beech House - Halesworth on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People told us they felt safe living in the service and that staff made them feel safe. Risks to people were appropriately planned for and managed. Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely. However, some prescription creams were not being stored securely.
People told us there were enough suitably knowledgeable staff to provide them with the care they required promptly.
Staff had received appropriate training and support to carry out their role effectively. However, the service still needed to finish yearly appraisals for staff. Plans were in place to develop upon the skills and knowledge of the staff team.
People received appropriate support to maintain healthy nutrition and hydration.
The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS.) People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People told us staff were kind to them and respected their right to privacy. People told us staff supported them to remain independent. Our observations supported this.
People told us they were encouraged to feed back on the service and participate in meetings to shape the future of the service.
People received personalised care that met their individual needs and preferences. People were actively involved in the planning of their care. People were supported to access meaningful activities and follow their individual interests.
People told us they knew how to complain and felt they would be listened to.
The manager instilled a culture of openness and transparency within the service. Staff told us that the managers were visible and led by example. Our observations supported this. Staff and people using the service were invited to take part in discussions around shaping the future of the service.
There was a robust quality assurance system in place and shortfalls identified were promptly acted on to improve the service.
This inspection took place on the 6 March 2015 and was unannounced.
Beech House provides accommodation and personal care support for up to 49 people including support for people living with dementia. There were 46 people living at the home when we visited.
There is a registered manager in place. 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 told us they were safe and protected from the risk of harm as staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff had the required knowledge and knew what action to take to protect people from harm and what action to take if they had concerns.
The culture of the service was centred on people who used the service and tailored to meet the care, treatment and welfare and needs of people. The care planning process was centred on the individual and people had been involved in the review of their care on a regular basis.
Staff supported people to live as full a life as possible. Activities were tailored according to people’s views and preferences and designed to enhance the wellbeing of people. People were supported people to maintain their independence and community involvement.
The manager had embedded a culture of person centred, individualised care where the dignity, respect and independence of people was promoted. Staff demonstrated their knowledge of people’s needs, they supported people in a manner which respected their individual choices and promoted their dignity.
The risks to people’s safety had been assessed and staff had been provided with guidance in the actions they should take to reduce risk to people as well as enabling people to live as full a life as possible. The provider had systems in place to manage risks and safeguard people from the risk of abuse.
There were sufficient numbers of staff available with the right competencies, skills and experience to meet people’s needs at all times. Staff had been trained and had the required skills and knowledge to care for people living with dementia and supported people in a manner which enabled them to enjoy a good quality of life.
People’s medicines had were held in a safe manner and managed by qualified staff so that people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.
Staff worked well as a team and had received the training and support they needed to deliver a high standard of care, safely. People were supported by a team of staff who were knowledgeable and passionate about meeting the health and welfare needs of people living with dementia.
At our inspection 23 December 2013 we found there had been improvements. We saw that appropriate arrangements were now in place in relation to the recording of medicine received and administered and a regular audit of medication stock.
During our inspection we looked at the care records of five people who used the service. We found that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.
During our inspection we looked at how information in medication administration records and care notes for people living in the service supported the safe handling of their medicines. We found shortfalls in the management of people's medicines where we could not be assured that people were receiving their medicines as intended by the prescriber.
We looked at how the provider supported people to access a formal complaints system. We saw that complaints were listened to and acted on effectively.
We saw that records were kept securely and could be located promptly when needed. This meant that people's rights to confidentiality were respected.
We spoke with one relative, a general practitioner (GP) and a district nurse who told us communication within the service was "excellent" and that they had confidence that the service responded well to the needs of people who used the service.
You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.