The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Beechmount

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Rousdown Road, Chelston, Torquay, Devon, TQ2 6PB (01803) 605607

Provided and run by:
South West Care Homes Limited

All Inspections

12 September 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Beechmount is a residential care home providing regulated activity accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care to up to 25 people. The service provides support to older people some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they felt safe living at Beechmount and spoke highly of the staff team. Staff understood how to protect people from the risk of abuse and had received safeguarding training. Staff told us they were confident to raise concerns.

Although we were assured people received their medicines as prescribed, we have made a recommendation about the information to guide staff to manage ‘as required’ medicines.

Risks to people were identified and managed to lessen the risk of harm to people. Staff knew the people they supported well and provided them with individualised care that reflected their needs, risks and preferences.

Staff followed infection control guidance and had access to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

There were enough appropriately skilled staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Staff had been recruited safely.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The registered manager and provider monitored the quality of the service. Effective monitoring systems were in place and information from monitoring and audits were used to drive improvements.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good. (Published 10 January 2019)

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

10 December 2018

During a routine inspection

Beechmount is a ‘care home’, operated by South West Care Homes Ltd. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

People living at Beechmount were older people, most living with physical health conditions associated with older age and dementia. The service accommodates up to 25 people in one adapted building, with a lift to access most of the rooms on the first floor. 19 people were living at the service at the time of the inspection.

At the last inspection on 6 November 2017, Beechmount was rated good in all areas. On this inspection we found this had been sustained.

Why the service was rated good:

The home had a registered manager. 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.

Systems were being operated effectively to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services provided, and mitigate the risks to people from their care or the environment. Assessments identified risks to people and how they could be reduced, for example from skin damage, falls or choking. Staff were aware of the principles of safeguarding people from abuse and how to report concerns about people’s well-being.

People in the management structure, such as the registered manager and care manager had a ‘visible presence’ in the service daily. Lines of accountability and responsibility were understood and there was a clear organisational structure. The management of the service had recently been strengthened by the appointment of area and deputy area managers to the provider’s senior management team, and a new care manager based in the service. People and relatives told us the management team was responsive, kind and listened to them.

The service was continuing to develop the services and care provided. Advice on good practice was sought and visiting professionals told us the service contacted them appropriately and followed their advice to support people’s needs. People’s healthcare was supported, and staff had clear guidance in the service’s care plans on how to support each person with a range of needs, including distress or anxiety associated with living with dementia. The service made arrangements to support people at the end of their life in accordance with their wishes. Care plans included information about people’s wishes regarding their care and support and we saw these were followed.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Safe storage was provided, and staff had regular competency assessments to ensure their administration practice was safe. Where people wanted to manage their own medicines, assessments of risk were undertaken.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet their needs. A full recruitment process was in place which ensured staff were recruited safely. This included the taking up of disclosure and barring service (police) checks and previous employment references, and assessments of risk where some information was not available. Staff received appropriate training to help them understand and support people’s needs.

People’s rights with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and under equality legislation were respected. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and applications had been made under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) where appropriate to deprive people of their liberty. Conditions associated with the authorisations were being followed.

Systems were in place for the proper management of complaints. The service learned from incidents and accidents, which were analysed to see if a repetition could be avoided; actions were taken where identified. People and staff were supported to share their views of the service at meetings, and through a series of questionnaires. These were then analysed and action plans drawn up to address any issues raised.

Some areas of the building were looking tired, but action was under way to redecorate the hallways and landings and re-carpet the lounge. Work had already started in these areas. The registered manager told us they had some ideas for extending environmental adaptation for people living with dementia when these areas were finished.

Activities were provided that met people’s interests and wishes. Visitors were welcome to visit at any time and have a continuing involvement in their relations care if they wished. Feedback from people living at the service and visitors was positive, and told us the service was kind and caring towards people. Some relatives told us their relation had received poor care in previous services and they had been very pleased with the support they had received at Beechmount.

6 November 2017

During a routine inspection

Beechmount 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.

Beechmount accommodates 25 people in one adapted Victorian building. Some people living at Beechmount are living with a dementia related condition. There were 18 people living at the home at the time of the inspection.

We last inspected the home in October 2015 and rated the service as 'Good.' At this inspection we found the service remained 'Good' and met all the fundamental standards we inspected against.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our visit. 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.

Why the service is rated good:

People when asked if they felt safe said; "Yes." A relative said, "She can’t just walk out of the door so yes she’s is safe living here." Another said, "I honestly can't say a bad word about the place."

People were protected from abuse and neglect. We found staff knew about risks to people and how to avoid potential harm. Risks related to people's care were assessed, recorded and reviewed. The management of risks from the building were also satisfactorily managed. We found appropriate numbers of staff were deployed to meet people's needs and had been recruited properly to make sure they were suitable to work with people. Medicines were stored and administered safely.

People continued to receive care from staff who had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support them. Staff were well trained and competent in their roles.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the home supported this practice. People's consent to care was sought, and their rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 understood and promoted.

People's nutrition and hydration was appropriate. People's dietary and nutritional needs were assessed, recorded and managed and advice was sought from nutrition specialists when needed. People had support to access professional medical advice and treatment and attend routine medical appointments, where they needed this.

Staff approached their work in a kind and caring manner, and knew the people they supported well. People's contribution towards decision-making that affected them was actively encouraged. Staff understood and respected people's rights to privacy and dignity.

People received care and support based around their individual needs and requirements. Care plans were person-centred and reviewed regularly. People were able to make choices about their day to day lives. There was a variety of activities for people to do and take part in during the day, and people had enough social stimulation. Complaints were fully investigated and responded to.

The home continued to be well led. The management team promoted open communication with people, their relatives and healthcare professionals involved in their care. Staff were clear what was expected of them, and expressed enthusiasm for their work at the home. The management team completed audits and checks to assess and improve the quality of the service people received at Beechmount.

9 and 20 October 2015

During a routine inspection

Beechmount is a large Victorian building set in its own grounds on the outskirts of Torquay. It is registered to accommodate 25 older people. People who live at the home have memory impairment or a form of dementia. The home is not registered to provide nursing care. A community nursing team provides this service.

There was a registered manager employed by the service. 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.

The inspection took place on 9 and 20 October 2015 and the first day was unannounced.

The service was last inspected on 2 December 2014 when it was rated as ‘Requires improvement’. Improvements were needed to the environment, the lunch time experience and the way people’s social needs were met. The service’s quality assurance systems had not identified issues raised by CQC and the registered manager had not notified CQC about all relevant incidents. At this inspection in October 2015 we found that improvements had been made.

The registered manager was enrolled on a training course provided by Dementia Care Matters who are leaders in the field of dementia care. They told us the training had enabled them to introduce a culture change within the home, by giving them practical information on ‘how’ to make the changes. Staff told us they loved the changes that had been made and had seen a positive effect on people. They told us their jobs had become less task orientated and things were much calmer around the home. Staff said they still had to work hard but were not so task orientated, they said they felt more relaxed and thought people living at the home did too.

Staffing levels were determined by the number of people living at the home and their needs. This ensured people’s needs were met in a safe and timely way. People were supported to receive the healthcare they needed and visiting professionals told us staff were knowledgeable about people and their needs. There were systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as they had been prescribed by their GP.

People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet. They were given choices about what to eat and staff used pictures of food to help people decide what they wanted. People’s needs were met in a kind and caring manner by staff who treated them with respect. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and all personal care was provided in private.

The care and support that was provided to people was responsive to their needs. People’s care plans were comprehensive and reviewed regularly so staff had the most up to date information available. People and their relatives were supported to be involved in making decisions about their care. Regular meetings were held and people were supported to talk about anything they wanted to.

Staff knew people’s histories and how best to meet their needs. Staff were quick to respond to people when people started to display signs of anxiety or needed help. Staff reassured one person who was becoming distressed by telling them they hadn’t done anything wrong. Staff started chatting about their own and the person’s hair and the person began laughing about it and their distress began to ease.

People were protected from the risks of abuse as staff knew how to recognise and report any suspicions of abuse. Robust recruitment procedures minimised the risks of unsuitable staff being employed at the home. People were supported by staff who displayed a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff always offered people choices and asked for their consent before providing personal care.

Visitors told us they could visit at any time and were always made welcome. They also said they were confident that if they raised concerns they would be dealt with quickly by staff. Everyone we poke with told us the registered manager was very open and approachable.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor care and plan on-going improvements. The registered manager told us they wanted to be able to provide outstanding care to people living with dementia. They said the training course they were enrolled on was helping them with this. The home had started using the ‘Butterfly household approach’. This approach aims to improve the quality of life for people living with dementia by encouraging staff to engage with them ‘in the moment’ of their experience and not impose reality on them.

Improvements had been made to the environment to make it suitable for people living with dementia. The three downstairs communal rooms were being used more effectively and people had more space to move around the home. People also had a choice of where to eat their meals, which had resulted in mealtimes being more relaxed and unhurried.

2 December 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Beechmount is a large Victorian building set in its own grounds on the outskirts of Torquay. It is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 25 older people. Most people who live at the home have memory impairment or a form of dementia. The home is not registered to provide nursing care. This service is provided by the local community nursing team.

This inspection took place on 2 December 2014 and was unannounced.

There was a registered manager in post at Beechmount. It is a condition of the home’s registration that a registered manager is employed at the home. 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.

Beechmount was last inspected by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 31 July 2013. At that inspection we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the carpets, lighting and maintenance of the building. The provider sent us an action plan telling us these matters would be completed by 28 November 2013. During our inspection on 02 December 2014 we saw that most of these matters had been dealt with.

Prior to this inspection we had received some concerns relating to furniture being used to prevent people leaving their rooms at night and that ‘sleep in’ night staff had to sleep on the dining room floor. We found no evidence to support these concerns.

During this inspection we identified a number of concerns that had not been picked up by the registered manager or the registered provider’s quality assurance systems.

People’s privacy was not always maintained and their belongings were not always protected. Not all bedroom doors had locks, which meant anyone could wander into people’s bedrooms and remove items.

The hot water system did not provide hot water to all rooms in the home at peak times throughout the day. This placed people at risk as staff had to take hot water from bathrooms to areas where there was no hot water. Some window restrictors were of a type that has been identified as being easily removed, this meant people may be at risk of falling from upstairs windows. Carpets in lounge areas were worn and in need of replacement. Call bells could not be heard in all areas of the home and a smoke detector was needed in one room where combustible material was stored. Following our inspection the registered manager told us these matters had been dealt with. There was no hand cleansing facilities in the laundry room, which meant there may be a risk of cross infection. The registered manager said they would put disinfecting gel in the laundry room. Some areas of the home had been redecorated and carpets in the corridors and staircase had been replaced.

People did not always receive care and support that met their needs. At lunch time we saw some people had to wait in the dining room for half an hour before they received their meal. The majority of people living at the home had some degree of dementia but not all staff had received training in this area. Not all staff communicated effectively with people living at the home. This meant people’s needs may not be met as staff may not understand what they were trying to communicate.

People’s social care needs were not always identified and provided for. There was a range of planned activities on offer, but there was little opportunity for engagement for people who did not wish to take part in these activities. One visitor commented “I wish there was more for them [service users] to do – [relative] gets bored.” A visiting professional also commented if anything could be improved at the home it might be activities.

Staff understood how to recognise and report any signs of abuse. Robust recruitment and financial management procedures were in place. People told us they felt safe at the home. A range of risks had been identified and managed appropriately.

People were enabled to have their choices and preferences met and were supported to maintain a healthy diet. People were involved in decisions about their care and support.

People’s healthcare needs were met by staff and visiting professionals. People were supported by staff that promoted their independence. Positive caring relationships had been formed between people and supportive staff. People described staff as “very good, helpful” and “perfectly alright” and said “It’s lovely here”. Staff were able to tell us how people liked to be supported and have their needs met. Care records were personalised and told staff about people’s individual needs.

The registered manager was approachable and encouraged positive relationships. Everyone spoke highly of the open positive culture within the home. A visiting professional told us they thought the registered manager was “a shining example of how to lead by example and be approachable.”

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

31 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We inspected Beechmount care home because we had received concerns from an anonymous person. Concerns included people being restricted from leaving the home and being confined to their rooms. This was also the scheduled inspection of this service. At this inspection we found no evidence that substantiated the concerns raised.

We found that all of the people who lived at the home had a form of dementia or memory impairment. This meant that some people found it difficult to communicate with us. People told us that the staff were "lovely" and "very caring'.

We found people were involved in decisions made about their care. We saw that people were able and encouraged to make decisions regarding daily activities.

People had care plans that enabled staff to look after their welfare. Family members told us that they were very pleased with the staff. They said "The staff are wonderful and so very caring", "They always inform me of what is going on' and 'I have no concerns, they do the best they can'.

People told us that they felt safe. Family members were confident that their relatives were safe. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding adults.

We inspected the safety and suitability of premises. We found that there were some areas of concern.

Staff told us that they felt supported by the manager. We found that the manager completed regular supervision.

The home had adequate systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided to people.

11 March 2013

During a routine inspection

We found that a number of people living at Beechmount had a dementia. This meant that some people found it difficult to communicate their feelings about their environment. However they were able to tell us that the staff were "wonderful" and that the entertainment was "good, I would not come here otherwise."

Some people had support and help from staff and their relatives in making important decisions on their behalf. However we observed that several people were able to make decisions regarding day to day activities such as who to sit near, or what to drink.

We saw that people had carefully considered care plans that enabled staff to look after their welfare. We spoke with family members who told us that they were very pleased with the care and support that their relative received. They commented "The staff are very welcoming, always giving you a cup of tea." "They tell us how XXX is doing and that enables me to settle."

We inspected the handling of medication and saw that this was done very carefully and by suitably qualified staff.

We also inspected staff files and found that the home took all proper precautions to employ people who were suitably qualified and fit for the role. All the required checks had been carried out. We looked at the homes records and files and saw that they had a good system for monitoring and managing the home.