Beechcroft

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People had care plans in place which reflected their health care needs. However, for people living with dementia they lacked detail about how staff could best support them, and their individual needs were not always well considered.

Some care was routine based and did not reflect people’s individual preferences. For example, people told us they were not supported to go outside very often. Staff were responsive to people’s needs but were not pro-active in anticipating needs in advance. For example, staff diverted people back to their bedroom or communal area once they had become unsettled but missed opportunities to give people meaningful things to do to prevent them becoming restless in the first place.

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.

Staff had good working relationships with local health professionals and made sure people received joined up care. The service had a clear understanding of it’s identity and ensured they only admitted people where they could both meet their health and care needs and benefit from the existing community. This ensured continuity of care and minimised people needing to move from service to service.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People had information provided in alternative formats where appropriate. People’s relatives told us they felt confident the service shared information appropriately.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, they did not demonstrate thorough investigations or learning from feedback and complaints. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

A complaints log was used to record complaints and concerns, however, there was no evidence of any learning from these. We received feedback from some people’s relatives there were ongoing issues with the management of people’s laundry, they told us clothes had gone missing and not been found.

Surveys were used to gather feedback from people, relatives and staff, however, there was no evidence of actions taken in response to feedback. For example, 50% of staff responded they only ‘sometimes’ had the resources to do their job, and 15% of people felt staff did not always respond quickly to their needs. There was no record of what was done to address this; the service improvement plan did not contain any actions from the feedback received.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff worked pro-actively with local healthcare professionals to ensure people could access services when they needed to.

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.

Staff advocated for people and ensured people who were more likely to experience inequality were supported.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s care plans included information about their wishes for the future and staff had included people’s families in discussions where appropriate.