You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 January 2018

Our unannounced inspection of Beckly House took place on 1 November 2017. At our last inspection we rated the service as ‘requires improvement’ and identified breaches of regulation relating to the premises and good governance. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions ‘safe’ and ‘well-led’ to at least good. At this inspection we found the provider had taken action to improve infection control, maintenance of the premises and governance systems to measure monitor and improve quality. We have now rated these key questions and the service overall as ‘good’.

Beckly House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Beckly House accommodates up to 12 people in one adapted building consisting of two units. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin ‘Registering the Right Support’ and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen, and Beckly House specialises in providing care and support to people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection 11 people used the service.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Beckly House was clean, well maintained and people told us they felt safe living there. Staff were recruited safely and were present in sufficient numbers to provide timely care and support, including ensuring people could maintain their independence as much as possible.

Risk was well assessed and we saw guidance in place to ensure risks were minimised with as little impact as possible on people’s independence.

Medicines were generally well managed, although we have made a recommendation about managing the temperature in the medicines storage room. ‘As and when’ medicines were well managed, including a minimal use of medicines to manage behaviours which challenged people and others.

Staff understood how to manage challenging incidents safely, and understood how to recognise and report any concerns about potential abuse.

Staff received effective support in the form of induction, on-going training, induction and appraisals.

People’s rights to choose and make decisions were supported in accordance with good practice and legislation. Staff asked people’s consent before any care or support was given, and we saw people had access to health and social care professionals when needed.

Menus were planned by people who used the service, and we saw people were able to choose and prepare meals for themselves. Culturally appropriate diets were supported.

People were treated with kindness and compassion, and care placed a clear emphasis on people’s individuality, dignity and independence. There was a lively and homely atmosphere and we saw people and staff knew each other well. People’s cultural and communication needs were well met.

Care plans were person-centred and kept up to date. Staff were well informed about changes in people’s needs or health.

There was a good approach to planning and supporting activities which people wanted to participate in. People were provided with information about how to make complaints, however the service had not received any since our last inspection.

There was a clear vision for the service, and we saw records and practice which demonstrate

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 January 2018

The service was safe.

The home was clean and well maintained. Risk was well assessed with clear plans in place to show how these could be minimised.

Staff were recruited safely and deployed in sufficient numbers to meet people�s needs.

Medicines were managed safely, although we noted some issues with the temperature at which they were being stored.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 January 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were well supported to be effective in their roles. There was a good programme of induction, training and supervision in place.

People�s capacity to make decisions was well assessed, and people received appropriate support in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Meals were chosen and prepared by people who used the service, and we saw culturally appropriate menus were in place where needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 January 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. People and staff had a relaxed and lively rapport.

Private rooms were decorated according to people�s preferences and tastes.

The provider was respectful of people�s cultural, spiritual and sensory needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 January 2018

The service was responsive.

Care was well planned, person-centred and reviewed regularly to ensure people�s up to date needs were understood and met.

People decided how they spent their time, and planned and participated in activities they chose.

People had access to information about how to make complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 January 2018

The service was well-led.

There was an inclusive and effective approach to measuring, monitoring and improving quality in the service. People, their relatives and staff were consulted.

The culture in the home was driven by a clear vision for providing good care and support and maximising people�s independence.