The Beeches

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person-centred care. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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.

People’s care and support was flexible to meet their individual needs. Staff understood people’s needs and preferences about their care and did their best to ensure these were met. For example, a member of staff told us it was very important for one person they supported to have a cup of tea before receiving their morning care. The member of staff described how the person’s needs and the level of support they required varied from day to day and explained how they tailored the support they provided accordingly, saying, “We go at [person’s] pace. If [person] needs help, I support her. The level of care can be different from day to day.”

People’s care plans were personalised and reflected their physical, emotional, cultural and social needs. For example, one person’s care plan stated they preferred to avoid eating meat on Fridays, and the staff who supported the person ensured this wish was respected. The person’s care plan also stated they preferred a care worker of the same gender to support them, and care notes demonstrated the person’s preference was respected.

We found one person’s care plan contained some out-of-date information that was not reflective of their current needs. This had not impacted the person’s care as the staff who supported them knew their current needs well. We shared this feedback with the provider, who updated the person’s care records.

The provider understood people’s diverse health and care needs, so care was flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff worked well with other professionals involved in people’s care, sharing information effectively and following any guidance about how people should be supported.

Staff turnover at the home was low and the manager said no agency staff had been used for some time as any gaps on the rota were covered by permanent staff working overtime. This meant people were supported by a consistent staff team, which they said was important to them. One person told us, “Some of the staff have been here ages and it makes the place feel genuinely like living with family.” Relatives confirmed the consistency of staffing was beneficial for their family members. One relative said, “The consistency is one of the best things; they keep their staff and they get to know each other. [Family member] is very fond of them all.” Another relative told us, “The staff know [family member] and she knows them, which is a huge plus.”

People had access to information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way they could understand. People’s communication needs were assessed, recorded and reviewed to support their care in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

Information was tailored to people’s individual needs. This included making reasonable adjustments for people where necessary. The PIR set out how information was made available to people in formats tailored to their needs, stating, ‘We recognise that some individuals with physical, sensory, or cognitive impairments require information in formats that are accessible and meaningful to them. Residents are given a Resident’s Handbook explaining how to access support and raise concerns. This information is available in different formats and languages as required. Translation services are arranged when necessary, and we benefit from having multilingual colleagues who can support communication when appropriate.’

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People told us staff listened to their views on a day-to-day basis. One person said of staff, “I can talk to any of them at any time and they always listen.” A relative told us, “[Family member] is able to make her views known and they are respected.”

A member of the management team said, “We have resident and relatives meetings. They are every month or every 6 weeks. The relatives have a lot of contact with us, and the residents know we have an open-door policy and are more than happy to come and talk to us.”

The provider had a policy which set out how any complaints would be managed. Records demonstrated that any complaints received had been investigated and responded to appropriately. The provider monitored complaints to identify any emerging themes.

People received care and support that was accessible and in line with best practice and legal requirements, including those on equality and human rights. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, addressing communication barriers and having accessible premises.

People were supported to access services when they needed to, including outside daytime working hours and in an emergency. The premises and equipment were accessible and people were given support where necessary to ensure equal access to care and treatment.

Leaders were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage people in accessing care and support. The provider used feedback to improve access for people more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing care.

People were empowered to give their views and understand their rights, including their rights to equality and their human rights.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using their services. People felt their experiences were listened to and acted on to improve their care.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they would have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they had the capacity to do so. This included involving people’s families and others who were important to them if they needed support to make decisions. People’s decisions about their care were respected and delivered through personalised care plans which were shared with others when necessary.