Beeches Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

At the last inspection the service was in breach of regulations relating to person-centred care. At this inspection, enough improvements had been made, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulations.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider ensured people’s care plans considered their physical, mental, emotional and social needs; and we observed people receiving different levels of support dependent upon their individual needs.

Staff worked with people and their relatives, to make sure they were involved in planning care and making shared decisions. A relative said, “[Staff] ring me up and keep me informed.” Another added, “We have regular meetings.” People’s care plans evidenced relatives were consulted and involved in decision making when people’s needs had changed.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of the service user group, and ensured care was joined-up, flexible and supported continuity.

Staff had access to training relevant to older people and younger adults, including those living with dementia; to aid their understanding of the people they supported. Nursing staff were available to support the health care needs of those with associated conditions, as and when required.

Staff worked flexibly and in a joined-up way with healthcare partners and unpaid carers. One relative attended daily to provide additional support to their loved one, telling us, “I speak to the senior daily and have a handover.”

Whilst the service regularly relied on agency staff, the registered manager minimised the impact this had on continuity, by using the same agency and staff whenever possible.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff had training in the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and explained the different ways they communicated with people. For example, using a pen and paper to support a person living with a hearing impairment.

The provider gave people clear and transparent information about the service, upon their move into the home; and ensured systems to store and manage people’s data were robust.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider did not always ensure people could feedback about their experiences of care in a range of accessible ways. Whilst resident meetings were held, we received mixed feedback about the frequency of surveys; and the suggestions box was located in the vestibule, inaccessible to people living at the service.

However, people and relatives were able to raise complaints about care, treatment and support. Relatives confirmed they felt confident in raising complaints and systems were in place to review them. One relative said, “I would feel confident though I haven’t had to complain. We do make it known if we want something done differently.” We saw evidence complaints were responded to with clear actions detailed.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider ensured the environment was accessible, and reasonable adjustments had been made to reduce physical barriers. For example, handrails and hoists were available, and people had access to equipment such as walking frames and adapted chairs.

The registered manager confirmed arrangements were in place to ensure managerial support was available out of hours or in an emergency.

The provider ensured they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff had training in equality and diversity to support their understanding of inequality, and information about protected characteristics was available in the service’s equal opportunities policy.

The provider ensured people were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s DNACPR statuses were recorded, and care plans documented their end of life wishes and care needs. Care plans prompted staff to provide care in line with best practice, and with the appropriate dignity and respect.

Staff received training in end of life care and could explain what good end-of-life care should look like. A staff member told us, “[End of life] should be pain free, dignified and respectful. Any wishes people have given beforehand should be acted upon.”

Nursing staff were available to support the team to manage people’s healthcare needs during people’s end of life, and the local hospice were involved when required.