You are here

Stamford Bridge Beaumont Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 15 October 2013
Date of Publication: 16 November 2013
Inspection Report published 16 November 2013 PDF | 90.35 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 15 October 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted upon.

Effective management systems and audits were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Records included monitoring the service environment, care plan reviews, medication reviews and maintenance of the building.

The staff who we spoke with gave good accounts of how they communicated with each other and with other health care professionals involved in people’s care. We found the manager fostered good professional relationships and communication between the groups of staff who worked at the service. The manager was involved in risk assessment, care planning, systems audits, staff supervision, staff observation, and direct support of people living at the service. The manager explained that this allowed the quality of care and support to be monitored, and also to identify, monitor and manage any risks to people who used the service.

There were a variety of methods in place to seek feedback and views from the people who lived at the service, their families, visiting professionals and staff. People living in the service were encouraged to give their feedback regarding living there. Staff told us they worked well together as a team to provide high quality care.

The manager told us that the most recent survey, which was sent out by an independent company, was due to report on questionnaires returned by the end of October 2013. We saw the report from last year which contained largely positive responses in relation to housekeeping, social life, management, catering, and atmosphere.

Questionnaires were also made available in reception so that people could give the service immediate feedback if they wished. Residents / relatives meetings were held on individual units. The manager also arranged a ‘whole service’ meeting twice a year. At a carers meeting held on 4 September 2013 we saw that people had discussed activities people might like to do together such as cooking or shopping.

Staff had the opportunity to meet together at regular daily handover sessions and staff meetings.These provided staff with a forum where they could receive legislative updates, and discuss complex cases and best practice.

Relatives we spoke with said they were happy with the care at the service and had no complaints. People who used the service, their relatives and staff told us that that they felt confident in taking any concerns or worries to the management team.

There was evidence that learning from incidents/investigations took place and appropriate changes implemented. The service carried out monthly analysis of falls and accidents to monitor for trends and so that action could be taken to stop issues re-occurring. The relevant professionals were contacted for advice and support where this was required.

Senior managers visited the service and completed checks on records, observations, speaking to residents, staff supervision and training records. The service then had a summary report and if appropriate an action plan to be completed with a timescale for completion.