Prestbury Beaumont

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 81 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Risks were reviewed and acted upon following incidents. After one person's fall, staff reviewed medicines, nutrition, hydration and environmental factors to reduce future risk. Staff spoke positively about an open culture which encouraged reporting, learning and continuous improvement. One staff member told us incidents were ‘recorded immediately’, while another said they reported concerns ‘no matter how minor they seem’.

Staff used handovers, meetings and supervision to share lessons learned, resulting in changes to care plans, risk assessments and support arrangements. One staff member told us, “I think the focus should always be on learning and improving rather than simply finding fault.”

The provider always worked with people and healthcare partners to design, establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. They made sure there was always continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Staff recognised deterioration promptly, escalated concerns and incorporated specialist advice into care plans. Following a significant change in a person’s health, specialist guidance about eating and drinking was translated into clear daily instructions for staff, including how to provide support safely and reduce identified risks.

One healthcare partner said they were very confident their recommendations were acted upon.

Pre-admission assessments considered whether people's needs could be safely met, whether the service was right for them and how their admission might affect other people living there.

The service provided flexible short-term care which responded to people's changing circumstances. Relatives described respite arrangements being extended when required, while other people were supported to regain sufficient health and independence to return to the community. This meant transitions were based on people's individual circumstances and outcomes rather than predetermined timescales.

When people's needs changed following hospital admissions, people were reassessed and new risks were identified and acted upon. For example, when a person was admitted with pressure damage, staff completed further assessments to work and worked with healthcare professionals to ensure appropriate care and treatment were in place. This meant changes in people's needs were identified rather than relying solely on information received at transfer.

There was strong evidence that staff adapted transitions around the individual rather than expecting people to follow a standard admission or discharge process. One person initially came to the service for respite care. As their circumstances changed, staff supported them to move gradually to permanent care, giving them time to adjust and involving them and those important to them in decisions. This resulted in the person settling successfully and developing a sense of belonging at the service.

One relative described how their family member had been very anxious about moving into residential care. Staff supported them with reassurance, kindness and compassion, taking time to build trust and help them feel safe and settled. The person’s experience was so positive that their initial concerns about residential care were overcome. Their relative said they now felt safe and well supported by staff and described the difference this made to the person and their family.

The service provided flexible short-term care which responded to people's changing circumstances. Relatives described respite arrangements being extended when required, while other people were supported to regain sufficient health and independence to return to the community. This meant transitions were based on people's individual circumstances and outcomes rather than predetermined timescales.

Relatives consistently described feeling well supported during periods of change. Following one person's return to the service after a hospital admission for multiple health concerns, their relatives described an overwhelming feeling of relief. Staff provided a care and coordinated transition, maintained regular communication and provided timely updates following professional reviews.

Sensitive discussions also took place with the family about where the future hospital admission would remain appropriate if the person's health deteriorated.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

Care records provided clear guidance on keeping people safe while protecting their rights. Staff had a strong understanding of safeguarding, received regular training, and were confident in identifying, reporting and escalating concerns.

Staff described a positive culture in which concerns were raised openly, acted upon appropriately, and escalated without delay. One staff member told us they would, “Always report safeguarding concerns to management”, while another said, “I would not ignore the concern or investigate it myself.” Staff understood the importance of recognising, recording and escalating safeguarding concerns, with one staff member stating, “I would never ignore a concern or assume somebody else had dealt with it.” Staff were aware of whistleblowing procedures and ‘Speak Up’ champions provided an additional route for support and reporting. Records showed safeguarding concerns were appropriately identified and referred to relevant agencies when required.

People told us they felt safe living at the service. Comments included, “I am totally safe here. I recommend” and “I am very safe here.” We observed how staff knew people well and responded promptly to changes in their wellbeing.

Relatives expressed confidence in the care provided. One relative told us their loved one was, “Safe and happy,” while another said they felt their family member was, “In safe hands.” Another relative commented, “Without fail, all staff show genuine concern for residents’ wellbeing and safety.”

A healthcare partner told us they had ‘full confidence’ people were safe. They praised staff for proactively recognising changes in people's health and wellbeing and responding appropriately to concerns.

Leaders maintained strong oversight through effective monitoring and review systems, enabling timely action to support people's safety and well-being.

The provider always worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks. Staff provided care that fully met people’s needs and was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were actively involved in managing risks, with approaches that balanced safety, independence and choice. Risk assessments were personalised, and staff considered less restrictive options before introducing restrictions. Before bed rails were considered for one person, alternatives including sensor equipment, crash mats and different bed arrangements were explored. Where people lacked capacity, decisions reflected best interests and the least restrictive approaches.

Staff took a person-centred approach to risk management, enabling people to make choices that mattered to them. One person with swallowing difficulties was supported to continue enjoying their preferred drink safely through adapted support.

Relatives described being involved in decisions about risks and having confidence that staff balanced people's safety with their independence.

Positive risk-taking enabled people to continue activities that mattered to them. One person with significant physical needs wanted to spend time outdoors. Staff worked with the person, their relatives and specialists to manage risks safely, adapting support and equipment to enable regular access to the garden.

Staff enabled people to continue activities linked to their identity and interests. When one person wanted to use the service's ride-on lawn mower, staff assessed the risks, support needs and environment rather than restricting the activity. With appropriate supervision, the person was able to participate safely in an activity that was important to them.

Risk management remained responsive to people’s changing needs. Staff reviewed risks and adjusted support, equipment and professional input as required while continuing to promote independence. This reflected a strong culture of positive risk-taking, where people were supported to enjoy meaningful experiences rather than being restricted by risk.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Effective maintenance and safety checks ensured the environment remained safe, well maintained and suitable to meet people's needs.

Equipment and environmental needs were carefully assessed and kept under review to ensure safe, personalised care. Staff had clear guidance on the equipment and support required, enabling them to meet people's needs safely and consistently.

The environment was clean, spacious and well maintained, with tidy communal areas and safely stored equipment.

Staff took an active role in maintaining a safe, comfortable and accessible environment. One staff member told us following incidents such as falls, environmental factors were reviewed and changes made where needed to support people's safety and well-being. Another described maintaining a ‘clean and safe’ environment as an important part of keeping people safe.

Relatives were positive about the environment and described it as safe, comfortable and well maintained. One relative described the home as, “Clean, organised and risk aware,” while another said people were able to move around the home "safely and freely."

Although a small number of environmental issues were identified, these were isolated and did not impact the overall quality of the environment. Leaders responded quickly and effectively to address the concerns identified.

As a Grade II listed building, the home faced some limitations when making improvements. Leaders and staff had identified areas for development and plans were in place to address them.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Care records clearly detailed the support people required and informed staffing arrangements, including where 2 staff were needed to provide care safely.

Staffing was planned and reviewed in line with people's changing needs, ensuring safe and responsive support. People received assistance when they needed it, and staff provided patient, person-centred support at mealtimes without rushing.

A stable and experienced staff team knew people well, enabling consistent, personalised support and strong relationships.

Staff spoke positively about teamwork and staffing levels. One staff member told us there was, “Always enough time for each and every resident for their care needs and for a chat.” Another said, “Staff morale and teamwork is excellent.”

Staff were well trained and completed a structured induction that prepared them for their roles. They consistently described a supportive culture, with ready access to guidance from experienced senior staff and leaders.

Professional partners spoke positively about the staff team. One professional told us, “The main strength is the staff,” describing them as; “Kind, caring, patient and respectful.”

Relatives consistently praised the competence and continuity of the workforce. One relative described workforce stability as, “One of the best things about the home,” while another told us, “The staff are consistent. I know them all by name.” They felt continuity helped staff understand people's needs and recognise changes in their wellbeing.

Staff said meaningful interaction was an important part of providing care. One staff member told us, “We know listening and talking is just as important as personal care. It's how we get to know residents and notice something's wrong.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Care records detailed people's infection prevention needs, and staff had clear guidance to reduce the risk of infection.

Appropriate food storage, clear dating of opened items and hygienic kitchen areas supported ac clean environment. Staff understood their role in maintaining cleanliness and safety.

Feedback from relatives reflected high standards of cleanliness and hygiene. One relative described the home as safe and hygienic, while another reported their family member had not experienced any infections since moving into the service, having previously suffered from them regularly.

A small number of cleanliness issues were identified. However, these were isolated and not reflective of overall standards. Leaders took prompt action to address these.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were managed safely and in line with people's individual needs. Staff had access to clear, person-centred guidance on how and when medicines should be administered. This included detailed instructions for time-critical medicines, helping to ensure people received their treatment safely and consistently.

Medicine-related risks were assessed and managed effectively, including people's ability to manage medicines independently and risks associated with their health needs.

Staff demonstrated a proactive approach to medicine safety. Records showed concerns were promptly identified and clarified before medicines were administered, helping to reduce risk and ensure safe, person-centred care.

Staff who administered medicines completed appropriate training and competency assessments before working independently.

Medicines were regularly reviewed as part of the provider's governance arrangements. Staff worked with healthcare professionals to ensure treatments remained appropriate to people's changing needs. Records promoted people's right to refuse medicines and supported staff to respect their choices.