Beeston View

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 that 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 72 (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.

Any incidents were shared and discussed amongst staff to enable learning and to help prevent recurrence.

The registered manager explained how any incidents were learned from to help further improve the quality of the service provided to people. Lessons learned were included for discussion at staff meetings and daily handovers.

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

For one person who was newly admitted to the service, we observed how staff managed their safety by implementing mobility aids to help ensure they were able to continue to mobilise in a safe way, helping them to transition more smoothly into the service.

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.

The provider shared concerns with external agencies such as the Local Authority, quickly and appropriately. Any recommendations made by the Local Authority with regards to safeguarding investigations, were discussed during team meetings and taken on board as part of learning and improvement.

There was a safeguarding policy in place which provided staff with guidance. Staff had received training in safeguarding and told us they wouldn’t hesitate to act on any concerns.

A member of staff told us, “I think people are definitely kept safe here, we share and manage the risk as a team.”

People told us they felt safe living at Beeston View. People told us, “I am safe. It is the general surroundings. It is quite nice living here. I would tell the nurse” and “I feel safe, and I would go to the office if I didn’t.” Relative’s comments included, “[Name] is safe and if not then I would speak to the manager” and “My mind is at rest, as I know [Name] is kept safe.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Care plans contained guidance for staff on how to manage and mitigate risks to people. Accidents and incidents were analysed regularly to help identify any trends and themes and to help any preventative measures to be implemented in a timely way. We saw for one person who was at risk of falls, how the provider had introduced preventative measures to help maintain the person’s safety, whilst also respecting their independence. One relative explained how they were kept fully informed after their loved one had experienced a fall.

People told us they felt involved to manage their risks, one person told us, “I have a walking frame and staff encourage me to use it.” A relative confirmed, “They have put a floor alarm mat to stop people coming in [Name’s] room and bed guards on her bed.”

Personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPS) were in place for people. A PEEP is a plan for a person who may need assistance, for example, a person with impaired mobility, to evacuate a building or reach a place of safety in the event of an emergency.

However, further information was required on some people’s plans in terms of providing staff with further guidance on where to move people in an emergency. We spoke to the registered manager about this who confirmed they would add this information right away.

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

Checks of the environment and equipment were up to date and certificates were in place to evidence this. Although the environment was a little tired in places, for example, chipped paintwork was evident in some communal areas, the building was well maintained, and there was effective oversight of this. A full-time maintenance person was in post to help ensure all health and safety checks were completed. Fire exits were kept clear and fire safety checks were completed and up to date. Any substances/equipment hazardous to people were safely locked away.

A relative commented how they thought the lay out of the home was suitably designed to meet their loved one’s needs, “The home is designed in a square shape, and its roomy and airy, it means [Name] can enjoy walking around which is what they like to do.”

We did note some of the clocks in the communal areas showed the incorrect time, it is important that people living with a cognitive impairment such as dementia are orientated to the time of the day.

The provider made sure staff were qualified, skilled and experienced, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. However, we received mixed feedback about staffing levels.

Staff were recruited safely. New staff underwent a programme of induction to help them prepare for their role. Staff told us they felt they were provided with the training and support they required. One staff member told us, “I have taken courses to further develop my skills, and the provider has supported me at every stage, I couldn’t be better supported.”

People and their relatives told us they thought staff were well trained. One person told us, “They're well trained.” A relative confirmed, “They are well trained, and the seniors know what everyone likes.”

People and their relatives told us they thought people received care from a consistent staff team and staff were caring and kind. Relatives told us, “Carers are nice and chatty and friendly” and “Staff are wonderful, trained, and I see the same staff when I visit so there is continuity.”

We received mixed feedback about staffing levels from people, relatives and staff. Comments from people included, “There seems to be enough staff” and “I sometimes have to wait.” Relatives commented, “I do think they are short of staff”, “Staff seem to be around today, [Name] has only just moved in” and “There are staff around, but they are always busy – it’s a busy home.”

A member of staff told us, “Yes you can always say it would be nice to have more staff at times, but we work well as a team and keep people safe.”

We observed staff responding to people’s call bells in a timely way. For people who were not able to use call bells, staff performed regular welfare checks, to help ensure people’s needs were met. A relative commented, “Staff are attentive to [Name’s] needs.”

Although we were assured the provider assessed and managed the risk of infection and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly, they did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading.

There was a malodour to a communal carpet on the ground floor and some of the chairs used in the main lounge, which was present during our assessment. The provider told us they would take steps to resolve this. A relative confirmed, “I do think the home is clean, bright and airy, but I have noticed the odour sometimes and have gotten used to it.”

The home was clean, hygienic and well maintained. Domestic staff were employed, and cleaning records were kept. There was a good stock of PPE available, and staff were observed using and disposing of PPE safely.

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

People told us they knew what medicines they were taking. A relative told us, “I know what [Name] has and it’s on time. I watch them [staff] administer them to her.”

Staff responsible for the management of medicines had completed the required training and their competency was routinely assessed.

For people who required PRN medicines (as and when required medicines) PRN protocols were in place and contained appropriate guidance for staff on when and how to use them appropriately. Staff were trained to utilise alternative methods such as ‘distraction techniques’ to avoid giving people PRN medicines unnecessarily.

Monthly medicine audits were carried out to ensure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs.