Beech Lodge - Mablethorpe

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 69 (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. This helped to reduce the risk of a closed culture developing.

The registered manager and staff team were open to feedback and willing to learn. There was an honest approach to understanding what needed to change. The team looked for lessons after incidents, complaints or feedback. Staff were very passionate about trying new ideas and thinking about how to improve care delivery.

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 example, some people planned on moving to more independent living services. People were supported to understand what would happen next at their own pace. Staff explained the process in clear language and gave reassurances where needed. People’s choices were respected and information kept up to date to ensure people’s care remained safe. Staff helped people plan and acted as liaison between services.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant for each person. Staff focused on improving people’s lives while also protecting their right to live in safety. This included protecting people from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. Concerns were shared quickly and with the right professionals.

People told us they felt safe and had no worries about how they were being supported. They said they would speak to staff if they were sad, upset or concerned. Relatives also felt their family members were safe and were confident the service kept them informed.

Staff understood what abuse looked like and knew how to report concerns. They were confident about raising issues and did this when needed. People who required a DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard) authorisation or a mental capacity assessment had these in place. Staff had a good understanding of Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCS) and DoLS and applied this in their work.

The provider displayed easy read information to help people understand how to stay safe. People were supported to know their rights and how to speak up if they were worried.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage most risks. Staff gave care that was safe and supportive. People were helped to do the things that mattered to them. Staff knew people well and understood their individual risks. Records included guidance to support staff but some documents needed review. Information about how people showed distress needed to be clearer. This included identifying triggers and showing staff how to deescalate situations in a safe and consistent way.

The service listened to people and their families and used this information when reviewing risks. This helped ensure care was safe and took account of people’s needs, abilities and wishes. People and relatives were involved in planning and discussing how to support them with risks. A relative told us, “[Staff] do as much as they can do. My [family member] had been supported with [learning about] safety but she doesn’t always listen and their memory isn’t that great. [Staff] do what they can.”

The provider identified and controlled risks in the environment. Safety was monitored and equipment, facilities and technology supported safe care. Staff used the environment in a way that reduced hazards and kept people safe.

The environment was well maintained. The provider undertook regular servicing of all equipment and systems to ensure they were safe to use reduced the risks of fires or other emergencies.

People’s bedrooms were very personalised and people were very proud of the décor choices and how their bedrooms looked. Communal spaces were also tastefully decorated and used to share easy read information about plans, events and how to stay safe. People used these regularly and spoke about them with staff which showed they were meaningful.

Relatives told us the environment and equipment were used safely and was in good condition. They said improvements such as new floors had made the home easier to clean. They also said staff used equipment like wheelchairs, walking frames and shower seats safely and supported people well.

There were enough experienced staff to keep people safe. Staff worked well together and understood people’s individual needs. People received help when they asked for it. Staff were offered a wide range of training opportunities and regular supervision as well as taking part in an induction programme. Managers conducted observations of staff practice to check competency. This helped them develop their skills. However, some staff had knowledge gaps in areas of learning in relation to best practice and statutory guidance when supporting autistic people and people with learning disabilities.

Staff were very knowledgeable about the people they supported including their likes, dislikes, health needs and how to communicate well. Staff had positive and trusting relationships with people.

Recruitment processes ensured the provider could be confident staff were suitable for the role. The provider checked references, employment history and completed DBS checks before staff started work. This helped make sure staff were suitable for their roles.

The provider assessed infection risks and managed them well. Staff took the right action to prevent infection spreading and shared concerns quickly with the correct agencies. The environment was clean and had clear schedules in place to support deep cleaning. Staff knew how to use PPE and where it was stored. There was plenty of PPE available when needed.

Relatives told us the home was clean and well maintained. People understood how to reduce infection risks and took part in safe routines. One person said, “I help in the kitchen, I wash my hands, put my apron on and choose a chopping board and help put food in the oven.”

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

Medicines were well managed and stored safely. There were no concerns about how medicines were administered. Staff were knowledgeable about the medicines people were prescribed and their care plan stated how they preferred to take them. People were happy with the support they received in relation to their medicines. One person told us, “The staff help me take my medicine.”

People using PRN (as and when needed) psychotropic medicines had PRN protocols in place to guide staff on when and how much to administer and people were supported to hold regular reviews of their medicines with their GP. However, records did not show how the provider reviewed the use of these medicines in line with STOMP. STOMP is a national programme that aims to reduce the inappropriate use of psychotropic medicines for people with a learning disability and autistic people.