Beeston View

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 that 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 75 (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.

People’s care plans evidenced people’s needs had been assessed even prior to their admission to the service. Care plans were written in a way which considered people’s current needs and history, enabling people to be cared for in line with their choice and preference.

Where people had specific health care needs which required regular monitoring, such as nutritional and skin integrity needs, assessment tools were used to help assess people’s level of need, to help ensure people received the correct level of support which was appropriate for them.   

One member of staff explained how they were kept up to date with people’s current and changing needs through their care plans and daily handover meetings.

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 and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider used recognised assessment tools to help determine the most appropriate care and treatment people required. For example, for people who were at risk of losing weight, the provider had taken timely action to make appropriate referrals to the dietitian to ensure people were fully supported with their nutritional requirements.  

People’s dietary needs and preferences were recorded in their care plan and staff were knowledgeable about people’s dietary needs. Kitchen staff prepared the right food and drinks for people, whilst also considering people’s preferences and choices. People had a say on what they would like to see on the menu.

We observed people having lunch and found the mealtime experience was relaxed. For people who required assistance with eating, staff provided this to people in a dignified way.

People told us they enjoyed the food, one person told us, “Yes the food is good enough to eat but I would love a curry!”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

For example, we saw for people who were at risk of falls and choking, the provider worked with external agencies to help implement safety measures for people. Any advice provided by external agencies, was recorded in people’s care records and followed by staff.

During our inspection we observed staff working with visiting professionals (community physiotherapists). Staff maintained a record of their visit and outcomes. One senior member of staff explained how staff understood the process for making referrals to other health and social care professionals. A visiting professional told us, “Staff refer any concerns immediately.”

People told us they had access to external health and social care resources such as dentists and opticians. A relative told us how they felt their loved one had access to external resources to meet their needs, “They tell me when they are getting the GP out to [Name].”

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.

We observed staff supporting people to manage their health and well-being. Staff encouraged people to spend time in communal areas engaging with other people, to help support their emotional well-being. The provider employed activity co-ordinators to help facilitate and deliver a range of activities for people.

Both people and their relatives told us they thought they were supported to keep active and stay healthy. One person told us, “I get out into the garden, I can see it from my room.” A relative confirmed, “They encourage [Name] and he likes music. Activities are good here.”

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

Staff were observed asking for people’s consent before providing any care and support to people.

People’s care records evidenced people’s capacity to consent had been assessed. Where people lacked capacity, applications for deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) had been applied for appropriately. People’s care records evidenced where decisions had been made in their best interests, we saw how people’s significant others were involved in decisions about their care and support.

People told us they were able to make everyday decisions and choices about how their care was delivered and about how they wanted to spend their day. One person told us, “I choose to come and sit in the lounge and watch TV.” A relative told us, “[Name] has been asked about what they want to do.” Another relative commented, “Staff always ask [Name] if it’s OK before they do something.”

We noted the DoLS tracking tool did not always best evidence the current state of people’s applications to the Local Authority. For example, we noted some applications had been made some time ago and it was not clear from the tracker whether the applications had been granted or not. We fed this back to the registered manager who immediately sent us an updated tracking tool to evidence DoLS were appropriately in place and authorised.

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

Staff were observed asking for people’s consent before providing any care and support to people.

People’s care records evidenced people’s capacity to consent had been assessed. Where people lacked capacity, applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been applied for appropriately. People’s care records evidenced where decisions had been made in their best interests, we saw how people’s significant others were involved in decisions about their care and support.

People told us they were able to make everyday decisions and choices about how their care was delivered and about how they wanted to spend their day. One person told us, “I choose to come and sit in the lounge and watch TV.” A relative told us, “[Name] has been asked about what they want to do.” Another relative commented, “Staff always ask [Name] if it’s OK before they do something.”

We noted the DoLS tracking tool did not always best evidence the current state of people’s applications to the Local Authority. For example, we noted some applications had been made some time ago and it was not clear from the tracker whether the applications had been granted or not. We fed this back to the registered manager who immediately sent us an updated tracking tool to evidence DoLS were appropriately in place and authorised.