George Beal 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.

People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them. Care and risk management plans were in place which included guidance for staff to support people when they became distressed. There were enough staff to support people safely and safe recruitment practices were followed.Risks to the environment were swiftly addressed and the service was well maintained.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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. People received safe care and were kept safe from potential harm when they received respite care at George Beal House. A relative told us, “The staff know [family member] very well and they know how to keep them safe. It gives me peace of mind knowing I can leave [family member] in safe hands.”

Risks to people had been assessed and their safety monitored. A relative told us, "The staff know my [family member] very well. They know they have certain risks around eating and drinking. We all communicate well, and they will always ask my advice. I think the risk are well managed.”

People were supported safely by staff. We observed 1 staff member supporting a person before they went out. The person appeared relaxed and at ease in the company of staff.

The management team were aware of their responsibility to liaise with the local authority if safeguarding concerns were raised and there were systems in place to support this process. Staff had access to safeguarding information and policies which contained contact numbers of who to contact with any safeguarding concerns.

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.

Risks to people had been assessed and their safety monitored. A relative told us, "The staff know my [family member] very well. They know they have certain risks around eating and drinking. We all communicate well, and they will always ask my advice. I think the risk are well managed.”

Staff were able to tell us how they supported people safely and understood people's risks. One staff member said, “Before a person comes in for respite, we review the care plans and risk assessments, so we are all aware of any changes before they arrive.”

People’s risk assessments and care plans were detailed and reviewed before each respite visit. Some people were living with complex and specific support needs, and we found comprehensive information about how best to support them and signs staff needed to look out for which may indicate a person needed support. Relatives were fully involved in the care planning process to ensure all risks to people were identified and assessed.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. A relative told us, “This is a lovely place, its meets the needs of [family member] and everyone who comes here."

Staff told us they carried out safety checks around the service and if anything required attention this was always carried out swiftly.

Our observations confirmed there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs in a timely manner.

Environmental checks and audits supported the provision of a safe living environment for people.

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.There were sufficient staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. A relative told us, “My [family member] has been going to George Beal House for many years for respite care. There are staff who have been there a long time, and they know [family member] very well. That consistency is paramount.” Another relative told us, “The staff are amazing. They are well trained and know [family member] almost as well as I do. I have complete faith and trust in them.”

Staff rotas demonstrated there were sufficient numbers of staff to support people as needed and to fully meet their needs. Staff told us they felt staffing numbers were sufficient to meet the needs of people using the service. One said, “Staffing is worked out in advance depending on how many people we have coming in for respite. I don’t find staffing an issue. Staff felt well supported and they told us they had regular training and supervision to ensure they were working in line with best practice guidance.

Our observations confirmed there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs in a timely manner.

The provider followed robust recruitment procedures to ensure people were protected from staff that may not be fit to support them. Disclosure and barring service (DBS) security checks and references were obtained before new staff started the probationary period. These checks help employers to make safer recruitment decisions and prevent unsuitable staff being employed. Rotas demonstrated there were enough skilled and competent staff to ensure they could safely support people who used the service. We saw that an ongoing schedule of training was in place, to ensure staff kept up to date with good practice. New staff completed an induction period, which included shadowing more experienced staff to get to know people, as well as covering the basic training subjects. Records provided evidence that staff had regular 1-1 supervisions and annual appraisals. Staff’s performance was monitored and managed well.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.