Prestbury Beaumont

We found the following examples of good practice.

Staff had received training in how to use and dispose of personal protective equipment (PPE) safely. The registered manager conducted regular audits of handwashing and how PPE was used to ensure guidance was correctly followed. The home was clean throughout and additional cleaning of high touch areas completed throughout the day. The provider had invested in various hygiene products designed to minimise the spread of infection.

People, visitors and staff were tested for COVID-19 in line with Government guidance. Where people had confirmed COVID-19, designated staff were allocated to support them. These staff members used separate entrances and did not access any communal areas to reduce the risk of the virus spreading. Each person had a risk assessment in place highlighting how their care would be provided should they test positive for COVID-19. This ensured systems could be implemented quickly if necessary.

Arrangements were in place to support people to receive visitors safely. Visitors were provided with information regarding the procedures they were required to follow. A designated area had been established which visitors could access without walking through the home. People were also supported to keep in touch with loved ones through the use of telephone and video calls.

Prestbury Beaumont is registered to provide accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 43 people. The care home is part of a care complex set in its own grounds, comprising of privately rented bungalows and apartments and a care home. There is also a domiciliary care service registered at the same location. This provides a service to people living in the apartments which are in the same building as the care home and the bungalows that are adjacent to the main building.

At the time of the inspection 16 people were using the service for accommodation and personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People living at Prestbury Beaumont received safe and effective care. Safeguarding systems, policies and procedures ensured people were safe and protected from abuse. Risks to health safety and welfare were identified and managed safely with the involvement of the person or their representatives.

Nursing, care and ancillary staff were employed in enough numbers to meet people’s needs and safe recruitment procedures were followed.

Systems were in place for reporting accidents and incidents and learning from them.

Medicines were managed safely and effectively.

The management team, nursing and care staff had formed trusting and positive relationships with people and their family members.

People told us they were supported and treated with dignity and respect. They benefited from a comprehensive assessment of their health and social care needs and were involved in the development of care and support plans that reflected their needs, personal preferences, likes and dislikes.

The atmosphere in the home throughout our inspection was warm welcoming and sociable. People had access to a range of activities that interested them and felt they were supported to maintain relationships with people that were important to them.

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

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and were able to access health care services as and when needed.

A visiting doctor spoke highly of the staff and management team, reporting that they worked in partnership with them to ensure that people’s health care needs were met.

People and family members were given opportunities to openly express their views and opinions and felt listened to. Concerns and complaints were responded to effectively and managers and staff learned from experience.

Staff understood their role and responsibilities for maintaining high standards of cleanliness and hygiene in the premises.

New staff received induction training before they could provide care and support. They benefited from ongoing training including nationally recognised qualifications in health and social care. Morale amongst the staff team was good. Staff told us that they appreciated support, guidance and direction of the management team.

The provider and management team demonstrated a commitment to continuous learning, improving the service and the delivery of person-centred, high quality care by engaging with everyone using the service and stakeholders.

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 11 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

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.

The service was last inspected in December 2014 where we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

Barchester Prestbury Beaumont is located one mile outside Prestbury village. The care home is part of a care complex set in its own grounds, comprising of privately rented bungalows and apartments and a care home. On the day of our inspection visit there were 18 people living in the home. There is also a domiciliary care service registered at the same location. This provides a service to people living in the apartments which are in the same building as the care home and the bungalows that are adjacent to the main building.

Prestbury Beaumont has 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.

We saw that staff were recruited safely, appropriately trained and supported. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care. Staffing levels were observed to be sufficient to meet the needs of the people living in the home.

We saw that the service had a safeguarding procedure in place. This was designed to ensure that any possible problems that arose were dealt with openly and people were protected from possible harm.

We did receive varied comments about responses to calls bells, however all our observations and discussions with staff confirmed that there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet the needs of the people living in the service.

People living in the home and their relatives confirmed that staff were kind, patient and knew them and their needs well.

The service had a range of policies and procedures which helped staff refer to good practice and included guidance on the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This meant that the staff members were aware of people's rights to make their own decisions.

The food in the home was good and we received positive comments about the choices that people were offered and the standard of the food.

The care plans were person centred and reviewed regularly, so staff knew if any changes in care provision had been made. This helped to ensure that people’s needs continued to be met.

There was a variety of activities and outings from the home which people told us they enjoyed and met the needs of the people living in the home.

There was a complaints policy and people knew who they could speak to if they were not satisfied with their care and were confident they would receive a response.

Staff members we spoke with were positive about how the home was managed. The staff members we spoke with were positive about the service and the quality of the support being provided.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits of the services, staff and resident meetings as well as spot checks to check the quality of the service as well as gain the views of the people receiving a service. The provider had an internal clinical governance system into which the registered manager submitted monthly information based on the audits undertaken within the agency to the company’s head office. The registered manager was making links with the local community to increase their involvement with the home and vice versa.

Staff told us that they were well trained and well able to deliver a high standard of care. People using the service confirmed this, one told us; 'The carers are lovely, they are so patient.' One relative told us; 'The staff are very good, very caring."

The residents and relatives that we spoke to during our visit had no complaints about the staffing levels. One relative told us; 'I have noticed an improvement in staffing recently.'

It was clear that systems were in place to audit and monitor the quality of care provided to people using the service. This meant that people using the service were protected against unsafe care.

People using the service that we spoke to knew that they could complain if they were unhappy about something, one person said "I would be comfortable making a compliant if I needed to.'

During our inspection, we repeatedly requested folders and documentation for examination. These were all produced quickly and contained the information that we had anticipated. This meant that the provider was keeping and storing records effectively

People's care records contained detailed information to show how they were to be supported and cared for. People told us they were well looked after. One person said; 'It couldn't be better here it's absolutely wonderful.'

Equipment at the home was found to be clean and well maintained.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. One person told us; 'Staff here are good and well able to look after me, there isn't one I would part with.'

The registered person had failed to ensure the protection of people using the service, as effective systems were not in place to; assess, monitor and manage risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of those people.

There was no effective system in place for the identification, receipt, handling and response to complaints from people using the service or their representatives.