Beckly House

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 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 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.

The service demonstrated a strong learning culture, evidenced by clear and robust incident recording practices. Staff members showed a good understanding of the procedures and the importance of recording incidents accurately. While some staff expressed uncertainty about whether all less serious incidents were consistently reported by colleagues, there was no evidence to support this concern. Our assessment found no issues related to underreporting. Furthermore, the incidents reviewed were effectively utilised to inform updates to care plans, ensuring that future mitigation strategies were considered and implemented. This approach highlighted the service's commitment to continuous improvement and safeguarding the well-being of individuals.

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.

The service had established effective pre-assessment processes for all new admissions, ensuring a thorough evaluation before individuals joined the service. We found clear evidence multiple professionals from different disciplines were actively involved in the safe care planning and assessment of people prior to, during, and following admission. This multidisciplinary approach helped to create comprehensive and person-centred care plans that addressed the unique needs of each person.

As a result of these robust processes, transitions into the service were smooth and well-coordinated, reducing the risk of disruption or distress for people being admitted.

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 quickly and appropriately.

The service demonstrated a strong commitment to safeguarding people using robust systems and clear record-keeping. A safeguarding matrix and detailed files were maintained to ensure all reportable incidents were accurately recorded and shared promptly with the local authority safeguarding team. Similarly, records were kept where referrals were made to the Care Quality Commission (CQC), providing a transparent and accountable safeguarding process.

These records were comprehensive and contained specific details about the nature of each safeguarding concern, the actions taken in response, and lessons learnt to prevent recurrence. This thorough documentation underpins a proactive approach to safeguarding and continuous improvement within the service.

Relatives expressed confidence in the service, stating they felt their loved ones were safe and had no concerns regarding their care. This feedback reflects positively on the culture of safety and vigilance maintained by staff.

Additionally, the service maintained a DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) matrix, which was regularly updated to ensure all DoLS conditions were accurately recorded within care files. This careful oversight ensures that people’s rights are respected and protected, contributing further to the safeguarding framework.

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.

The service demonstrated a thorough approach to managing risk through comprehensive and individualised risk assessments. Care records contained numerous detailed risk assessments tailored specifically to each person's unique needs and circumstances. These assessments were consistently up to date, reflecting the dynamic nature of people’s needs and any changes in their situations.

The detailed guidance within these risk assessments provided staff with clear, practical strategies to mitigate identified risks effectively while balancing the promotion of individual choice and independence. This approach supported people to live as safely as possible without unnecessary restrictions, respecting their autonomy and preferences. The service fostered a culture of empowerment and shared responsibility.

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

The environment was well maintained, providing a safe and comfortable setting for people using the service. Bedrooms were personalised, reflecting individuals’ preferences and helping to create a sense of familiarity and ownership. Communal areas were homely and welcoming, supporting social interaction and a relaxed atmosphere that promoted wellbeing.

All necessary safety certifications were in place and up to date, demonstrating the service’s commitment to maintaining a safe physical environment. Regular checks and maintenance ensured that the environment met required safety standards consistently.

Fire safety management procedures were robust and adhered to rigorously, including timely servicing of equipment, clear evacuation plans, and staff training. These measures ensured the ongoing safety of people in the event of an emergency and reflected a proactive approach to risk management.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

We found staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s essential care needs effectively. One-to-one support was consistently provided where required, ensuring individuals received personalised attention and assistance tailored to their needs. Staff deployment was well organised to maintain safety and responsiveness across the service.

Our review of activity records demonstrated people had regular access to a variety of activities and outings, reflecting the service’s commitment to promoting engagement and social inclusion.

Recruitment processes were safe and thorough, with all necessary pre-employment checks completed for the staff files we reviewed. New staff received a comprehensive induction, including support and shadow shifts before working independently. While staff suggested that the induction could be further strengthened by introducing a buddy system pairing new employees with experienced team members, the current process ensured staff were well-prepared for their roles.

Staff training compliance was high across mandatory areas, with the added benefit of niche training tailored to meet the specific and complex needs of some individuals living in the home. This specialist training equipped staff with the knowledge and skills required to provide person-centred, effective care and support, enhancing the overall quality and safety of the service.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The service demonstrated effective infection prevention and control practices that supported the safety and wellbeing of people living in the home. Staff were observed wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly and appropriately, following current guidance to reduce the risk of infection transmission. This consistent use of PPE reflects staff understanding of IPC procedures and their commitment to maintaining a safe environment.

The home was visibly clean and hygienic throughout, with well-maintained communal and private areas. Handwashing and hand sanitisation facilities were readily available and well stocked, encouraging good hand hygiene among both staff and visitors. This accessibility helped to reinforce best practices in infection control and reduce the risk of cross-contamination.

Cleaning schedules were in place and adhered to by all staff, ensuring that all areas of the home were regularly cleaned and kept tidy. The schedules covered high-touch areas and communal spaces, demonstrating a proactive approach to maintaining a hygienic environment.

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.

Overall, medicines were managed safely within the service. Secure storage arrangements were in place, and all necessary temperature checks were routinely completed to ensure medication efficacy and safety. Documentation relating to medicines administration was generally accurate and thorough, with medication administration records (MARs) completed consistently and without unexplained gaps.

A small number of minor improvements were identified, primarily relating to the recording of time-specific medications and protocols for ‘as needed’ (PRN) medicines. Some PRN protocols required clearer guidance to support staff in administering variable dose medications correctly and within safe timeframes. Despite these documentation gaps, there was no evidence of inappropriate use or overuse of medication, as individuals receiving PRN medicines had only limited doses over the review period.

The majority of PRN protocols were detailed and person-centred, providing staff with clear instructions to meet individual needs safely and effectively. These findings reflect a responsible approach to medication management, ensuring people receive their medicines safely while promoting their wellbeing.