Prestbury Beaumont

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 83 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Comprehensive assessments ensured care remained personalised and responsive to people's changing needs. Staff considered all aspects of people's health, communication, risks, preferences and well-being to develop and maintain effective care plans.

Assessments recognised people's strengths as well as their support needs. Records clearly documented an individual’s communication needs, including the use of eye movements, facial expressions and body language. This supported staff to understand their wishes and involve them in decisions about their care.

Care plans were regularly reviewed and adapted as people's needs changed. Staff were guided to anticipate and respond proactively to one person's progressing condition, while another person's care plans were updated to reflect changes in their mobility, communication, swallowing and nutritional needs.

Risks were assessed in a thorough and person-centred way. One person's falls assessment considered factors including mobility, medicines, nutrition, cognition and environmental risks, helping staff understand and reduce their risk of falling. 

The provider completed detailed pre-admission assessments to ensure people's needs could be met safely. Following one emergency admission, staff quickly identified signs of deterioration, arranged urgent medical reviews and ensured an infection was promptly identified and treated.

Staff spoke positively about care records, describing them as detailed, regularly updated and effective in supporting safe, person-centred care.

A healthcare partner praised staff for promptly raising concerns about people's medical needs and recognising changes in their condition.

Relatives described staff as knowing people well and adapting support to meet their changing needs.

Assessment outcomes informed personalised care and monitoring. Where risks such as malnutrition were identified, staff introduced targeted support to promote people's health and well-being.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation. They worked to develop evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff translated professional recommendations into clear guidance and consistently implemented them. A healthcare professional told us, “I have full confidence that my recommendations and plans have always been actioned correctly.”

Staff provided proactive, personalised care to prevent pressure damage, working closely with healthcare professionals when risks were identified. The provider reported no-one had developed any pressure damage during the previous 12 months. Records demonstrated positive outcomes, including healing of existing pressure damage following assessment and treatment.

Specialist guidance for people with swallowing difficulties was embedded in day-to-day practice. Care plans provided clear instructions on food and fluid consistency, positioning and support needs, which were consistently understood and followed by staff. We observed modified diets being provided correctly and staff responding promptly and effectively to people's changing needs during mealtimes.

Care and treatment was tailored to people's changing needs. Staff recognised when further professional input was required and acted promptly. One relative described how staff identified changes in their loved one's ability to chew and quickly arranged further speech and language therapy support.

Staff worked collaboratively with healthcare professionals and families to ensure care remained appropriate and person-centred. As people's needs changed, support was adapted to prioritise comfort, dignity, effective symptom management and quality of life.

Relatives described clear improvements in people's health and well-being, attributing these positive outcomes to the timely and responsive support provided by staff.

The provider always worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people did not have to share their story more than once. People experienced highly coordinated care because staff, teams and external professionals worked effectively together.

Staff consistently described a “whole home approach” where different departments shared responsibility for people's well-being and outcomes. One staff member said, “Care isn't delivered by one department alone,” while another described colleagues across the service as “one big team.”

Daily stand-up meetings brought together staff from across the service to share information, discuss changes in people's needs and agree actions. This meant staff working in different roles had current information and could respond consistently when people's needs changed. Nursing, care, catering, activities and other staff also shared relevant information, so people's needs were understood across the service.

Staff worked closely with GPs and specialist services. Concerns were raised promptly, referrals and reviews were followed up, and professional recommendations were shared with the staff responsible for providing people's day-to-day support. One healthcare partner described communication with the service as “very effective” and said staff were excellent at recognising and raising medical concerns.

There was clear evidence that highly effective partnership working led to significantly improved outcomes for people. For example, one person arrived at the service with complex nutritional support needs that affected how they were able to eat and drink. Staff worked closely with specialist professionals, consistently followed their guidance and supported the person through further assessment. As a result, the person’s needs reduced significantly, and they regained greater independence with eating and drinking. This had a positive impact on their everyday life and demonstrated how coordinated working between the service and specialist professionals supported people to achieve meaningful improvements in their health, independence and quality of life.

Staff and relatives gave further examples of different teams and professionals working together. When people's health or abilities changed, staff coordinated professional input and shared resulting changes across the service. Rather than relying on individual departments to work separately, relatives described staff taking responsibility for coordinating support on people's behalf and keeping them informed.

Joint working was more than effective communication between staff and professionals. Information was shared, agreed actions were followed through and different teams work together around the individual, contributing to improvements in people's health, independence and quality of life.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People received personalised support to maintain their nutrition, hydration, mobility and overall well-being. Staff regularly assessed and monitored needs, adapting care promptly to support positive health outcomes and changing circumstances.

Promoting well-being was central to the culture of the service. People were supported to stay active, spend time outdoors, maintain meaningful interests and remain connected to their community, contributing to positive health and quality-of-life outcomes.

One person told us, “The food is great”, while another said, “The chef is a wonderful baker.” Another person commented, “It is a lovely place to stay.”

People were supported to maintain their physical, emotional, social and spiritual well-being through a varied programme of meaningful activities, including exercise, faith-based opportunities, social events and community engagement.

Relatives consistently praised the opportunities available. One relative told us there was, “Plenty going on for people”, while another said the variety of activities resulted in ‘happier people’. Relatives described a person-centred approach in which staff respected individual preferences and encouraged meaningful social engagement while supporting people's choice and control.

Staff supported people to maintain their independence, wellbeing and quality of life. Relatives said the provider helped people live fulfilling lives and achieve positive outcomes. One relative said staff supported their loved one to experience ‘the best quality of life they could reasonably achieve’.

Relatives said staff took a creative and personalised approach to supporting people's well-being. One relative described how staff continually developed opportunities based on individual interests, enabling their family member to enjoy activities such as entertainment, outings and gardening, which had a positive impact on their well-being.

The provider monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People's outcomes were closely monitored, with staff responding promptly to changes in health, well-being and risk. Clinical indicators, including nutrition, weight, skin integrity, pain and mobility, were regularly reviewed, and care was adapted to meet changing needs. Additional monitoring, assessment and professional input was introduced when concerns arose, helping to achieve positive outcomes.

Monitoring and review was person-centred and proportionate to people's needs. Staff considered the wider clinical picture when assessing changes in health and worked collaboratively with healthcare professionals and families to ensure care remained focused on achieving the best possible outcomes, including comfort, dignity and quality of life when treatment was no longer beneficial.

Care delivered clear and measurable improvements in people's outcomes. Staff achieved positive results through personalised interventions, including successful weight gain following tailored nutritional support and the healing of existing pressure damage after assessment and treatment.

Staff recognised improvement as well as deterioration and adapted care to support recovery and independence. One person progressed from requiring significant support with mobility to walking independently with a walking aid. Another made a substantial recovery from illness and was supported to resume meaningful activities and aspects of their previous working life.

People with complex health needs achieved sustained and measurable improvements. One person with a history of recurrent infections was supported through multidisciplinary working and specialist assessment to return to eating and drinking independently, removing the need for a feeding tube. Another person receiving short-term support experienced resolution of an infection, healing of skin damage, weight gain and increased independence, enabling them to return safely to the community.

Relatives described noticeable improvements after people moved into the service. One relative said their family member had improved considerably, both physically and emotionally since moving into the service. They attributed this to the consistent care, attention, meaningful activity and support provided by staff.

Professional feedback reflected staff's ability to recognise changes in health and escalate concerns promptly. Monitoring was used proactively to drive improvements in people's outcomes, including mobility, independence, nutritional status, skin integrity, recovery from illness and overall quality of life.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People were supported to make decisions about their care and treatment wherever possible. Staff took a person-centred approach to consent, supporting people to express their wishes and protecting their rights in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

People's rights, choices and autonomy were embedded in care planning. Records showed people were supported to make their own decisions wherever possible, including the right to refuse treatment. Capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were clearly documented when required.

Where people lacked capacity to make complex decisions, they were supported to remain involved in everyday choices wherever possible. One person's care plan guided staff to offer manageable choices, seek consent for day-to-day care and recognise verbal and non-verbal expressions of preference. Significant decisions were made through best-interest processes with the involvement of those who were important to the person.

We observed staff consistently seeking consent before providing support. Staff used respectful language, checked people were happy to receive assistance and respected decisions to decline support or choose not to take part in activities.

Staff consistently demonstrated a rights-based approach to decision-making. They understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, promoted people's independence and choice, used the least restrictive options, and ensured decisions made on behalf of people were in their best interests.

Relatives consistently described a person-centred approach in which staff respected people's choices and adapted support to how they were feeling. Staff recognised when people needed more time or a different approach, and relatives felt involved and consulted in decisions about care and support.