You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 September 2016

We inspected Beaumond House on 18 August 2016. The inspection was unannounced.

Beaumond House is a community hospice managed by the registered charity Beaumond House Community Hospice. It is a nurse-led service with medical support provided by people’s own doctors. It is situated in the town of Newark in Nottinghamshire. They provide palliative care to people who live in Newark and surrounding areas with life limiting or terminal illnesses. The services provided included accommodation within four short term respite beds, care in people’s own homes and a day therapy service.

A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. Two registered managers were in post at the time of the inspection who shared the role equally.

Staff had ensured that people’s rights were respected by helping them to make decisions for themselves. The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how registered persons apply the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and to report on what we find. These safeguards protect people when they are not able to make decisions for themselves and it is necessary to deprive them of their liberty in order to keep them safe. No one staying in the hospice had any restrictions of their liberty and the registered persons knew how to seek out any DoLS authorisations that may be required in the future.

People felt safe when they received care from staff, whether they were staying in the hospice or receiving care in their own home. Risks to their health, safety and welfare were minimised and staff knew how to respond to any concerns that might arise so that people were kept safe from abuse. There were enough staff on duty and background checks had been completed before new staff were appointed.

People had been supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their well-being and they had received all of the healthcare assistance they needed.

People had been consulted about the care they wanted to receive and they had been given all of the care and support they needed. People were supported to maintain their interests and were offered a range of meaningful activities to choose from when they visited the hospice. They knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint if they needed to and there was a system in place for resolving complaints.

People were treated with care, kindness and compassion. Staff recognised and upheld people’s right to privacy, promoted their dignity and respected confidential information.

Staff had received training and support which was designed to meet people’s individual needs. They knew how to care for people in the right way. They were supported to maintain and develop their knowledge and skills and were supported to speak out if they had any concerns about poor practice.

The registered persons promoted an inclusive approach to managing the services with an emphasis on continuous development. Quality checks had been completed to ensure that people received the care and services they needed.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 September 2016

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to keep people safe from harm.

Action was taken to minimise any identified risks to people’s health, safety or welfare.

Medicines were managed safely.

There were enough staff on duty to ensure people reliably received the care they needed.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 September 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had received training and support to enable them to provide care for people in the right way.

People were helped to eat and drink enough and they had received all the healthcare attention they needed.

People were helped to make decisions for themselves. When this was not possible legal safeguards were followed to ensure that decisions were made in people’s best interests.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 September 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were caring, kind and compassionate.

People’s right to privacy was respected and staff treated them with respect and dignity.

Confidential information was kept private.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 September 2016

The service was responsive.

People had been consulted about the care they wanted to receive.

People were supported to pursue their interests and meaningful activities.

There was a system in place to resolve complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 September 2016

The service was well-led.

People had been asked for their opinions of the service so that their views could be taken into account.

Quality checks had been completed to ensure that people received the care and support they needed.

Staff had been encouraged to speak out if they had any concerns.

People had benefited from staff acting upon good practice guidance.