Archived: Beacongate

Beacongate is a residential care service that provides accommodation for up to five individuals with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection five people were using the service. At our last inspection in April 2014 the service was meeting the regulations inspected. During this inspection we learned the service was due to merge with two other services run by the same provider and move to a new purpose built building during 2017.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

Staff helped make sure people were safe at Beacongate and in the community by looking at the risks they may face and by taking steps to reduce those risks.

There were enough staff to support people to live a full, active and independent life as possible and staff and managers were able to offer support when required from an adjacent home under the same provider. People were cared for by staff who received appropriate training and support to do their job well. Staff felt supported by their manager.

People were offered choices, supported to feel involved and staff knew how to communicate effectively with each individual according to their needs. People were relaxed and comfortable in the company of staff. Staff supported people in a way which was kind, caring, and respectful.

Staff helped people to keep healthy and well, they supported people to attend appointments with GP’s and other healthcare professionals when they needed to. Medicines were stored safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed. People were involved in their food and drink choices and meals were prepared taking account of people’s health, cultural and religious needs.

Care records focused on people as individuals and gave clear information to people and staff using a variety of photographs, easy to read and pictorial information. People were appropriately supported by staff to make decisions about their care and support needs. These were reviewed with them regularly by staff.

Staff encouraged people to follow their own activities and interests. Relatives told us they felt comfortable raising any concerns they had with staff and knew how to make a complaint if needed.

The provider regularly sought people’s and staff’s views about how the care and support they received could be improved. There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service that people experienced.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people who used the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found the home to be clean and tidy at the time of our visit. There was a designated cleaner who worked in the home each day to ensure that people received care in an environment that was hygienic and free from odour. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the systems in place by the provider to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. Staff had access to personal protective equipment, such as gloves and aprons to ensure that they protected themselves and others. There were reminders and facilities around the home to promote good hand hygiene which meant that the risk of cross infection was minimised.

We found evidence that the home had taken steps to ensure that it was compliant with the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Through staff training and ongoing care plan reviews we found that the home had taken appropriate action which ensured that people received support that protected their legal rights and balanced safety with choice.

Is the service effective?

We saw that people had good relationships with the staff who supported them and observed positive relationships between them. The home had mechanisms in place to ensure that staff received training and line management support to deliver their roles effectively. We spoke with four members of care staff and they described the registered manager as 'Supportive' and 'Approachable' at all times. Staff said the provider had good systems in place to ensure they had 24 hour access to on-call support should they need it.

Is the service caring?

We observed that people received sensitive and discreet care at all times. We saw that people's choices were respected and that staff involved them in their care. We found that people had comprehensive care plans which provided detailed guidance about how they should be supported. This meant that the provider had taken steps to ensure people received the care they needed in a way that made them feel comfortable.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs were continually assessed. Records confirmed people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and demonstrated that they recognised and responded when these changed.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had good systems in place to monitor and improve the services provided. The registered manager was skilled and competent with good knowledge and oversight of the running of the home. Throughout the inspection, the management team demonstrated that they placed the needs of the people who lived at Beacongate at the heart of the service.

There were three members of staff working when we arrived at the home. Due to staff vacancies at Beacongate, two of the care staff on duty had been supplied by a local agency. We met with both of these staff who demonstrated a good knowledge of the service and had a good rapport with the people who lived there.

We found that the provider had appropriate systems in place to recruit staff and train them in key areas such as safeguarding. This meant that people were protected from the risk of abuse because steps had been taken to safeguard them from harm.

We found that there had been some management changes at the home over recent months which included the registered manager having been seconded to another role. These changes, along with the departure or redeployment of other senior staff had a negative impact on the running of the home. Care plans had not been properly updated in the last two months for two people this had meant that they had not received care that fully met their needs. The lack of core staff had also impacted on the ability for people to be supported with external activities such as horse riding and trips out.

Following the inspection, the provider contacted the Inspector to discuss the issues we identified. They then submitted an immediate action plan which demonstrated that they had taken our concerns seriously and were taking appropriate action to address them quickly.

We spoke with four members of staff including the newly appointed manager. We found staff to be knowledgeable about the needs of the people they supported and were enthusiastic about the work that they did.

We looked at a range of records maintained by the home, including the care plans for two people. We found all records viewed were well maintained with evidence of having been regularly updated.

Staff told us that they felt well supported by both the new manager and the organisation. Staff said that they had access to a range of both mandatory and specialist training. We found that staff had the necessary skills and support to undertake their roles effectively.