Beckoning House Limited

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of regulation in relation to person-centred care. A person’s care plan and risk assessment were not person-centred.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

The person’s care plan and risk assessment was not person-centred or accurate. The care plan did not include information about the person’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs. There was no information in relation to the person’s preferences or long-term aspirations.

However, staff told us they knew the person well. Staff worked well with them to understand how they wished to be supported and promoted positive outcomes for them. Staff were able to describe their care needs and the support they required as an individual.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. A relative told us they were receiving care from the same staff member, so they received continuity of care. Staff confirmed they had a regular working pattern. A relative told us, “We have the same carer, and it doesn’t really change. The carer knows [relative] so well and they have a good relationship together.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager told us the person had access to a written care plan in their home and the relative confirmed this. However, information in the care plan lacked detail, was not always accurate or up to date. The provider did not assess or record the person’s communication needs in their initial assessment or care plan. As a result, the person may not have received information in a way they could understand, which could affect their ability to engage with staff, make informed decisions, and participate fully in their care.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. A relative told us, “I feel fully involved in [relative’s] care and I always get asked for suggestions. I have not had to raise any concerns or complaints, but I am sure they would get addressed if I did have to.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. A relative told us they had access to all the services they needed.

The registered manager told us regular meetings were held with staff to ensure appropriate referrals were made in a timely way when needed.

The provider had processes in place to ensure people had access to the right services when they needed them. However, the person’s care plan did not include information about the person’s mobility or communication needs and how they can be met to ensure they have equal access to services.

A person told us they were supported to access the healthcare they needed such as visits from the GP practice.

Staff confirmed they had completed training in equality and diversity. Staff were aware of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act acknowledging diversity and valuing differences.

Staff ensured people had access to healthcare to maintain their wellbeing. Where indicated people could be supported to attend specialist health appointments for continued monitoring and treatment.

People were not always 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 care plans did not include information and discussions around making informed decisions about their end of life wishes. The registered manager failed to review and monitor the quality of care and how they delivered person-centred, dignified support.