Beckoning House Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Feedback from relatives and people were positive about how caring staff were. A relative told us, “We are very happy with the care we receive. The member of staff does a really good job. The staff member is well-mannered, kind, considerate and respectable. We are very fond of them.”

Staff were able to tell us about the person’s preferences and how they liked to be supported. A member of staff told us, ''I enjoy talking to [person] and understanding what they like or dislike.”

The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Limited information was recorded in the care plan about the person’s personal, cultural, and social needs and the person’s daily care notes were not always person centred or accurate. This meant we could not be assured the person was receiving person-centred care.

Staff told us they worked hard to support the person and meet their individual needs. Staff had built relationships with the person to provide support in a personalised way and how they wished to be supported.

The service did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The person’s care plans and risk assessment did not include detailed information about their hobbies, interests and important relationships. The person’s personal history was not recorded. Staff were not provided with enough information about the person's likes or dislikes to help understand them and initiate conversation. This meant we could not be assured the person was supported to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. The registered manager had regular contact with the person and their relative to seek feedback. A relative told us, “The manager is approachable, and I have various different methods to contact them. We also have a box in our home to provide feedback. I can also contact the manager by telephone or email depending on how urgent the query is.”

The registered manager told us no formal concerns or complaints had been raised either by the person using the service or those acting on their behalf, the local authority or others since the domiciliary care service became operational. This concurred with information held by the Care Quality Commission.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff felt well supported working at the service and found it to be a positive experience for them. Feedback from a staff member was positive regarding the support they received from the registered manager. A member of staff told us, “I really enjoy working for this company. The manager is very approachable, and I can speak to them about whatever I need to. I feel very supported.” There was an open-door policy in the office and staff could access the office at any time to speak to the registered manager.