We carried out a review of the data available to us about Beaconville Nursing Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Beaconville Nursing Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Beaconville Nursing Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The provider is registered to accommodate up to 36 people. Beaconville Nursing Home provides nursing care and specialises in dementia nursing for older people. At the time of the inspection 32 people were living at the home.
There was 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.
At the last inspection in January 2016 we rated the service 'Good'.
At this inspection on the 29 and 30 May 2018 we found the service continues to be 'Good'.
People received care and support in an exceptionally personalised way. Staff knew people well, understood their needs and the way they communicated if they were living with dementia. Care was focused on people's wishes and preferences. This meant people were able to achieve a good sense of self-worth and wellbeing. The impact this had on people was outstanding and had resulted in them being settled, content which helped them to lead as full and active lives as they wanted to. People’s quality of life had improved and was maintained.
The ethos of this home, led and maintained by a strong management team, ensured people were at the heart of the home. Without exception people and family members told us staff were very caring. Comments from relatives included, “The staff here and the quality of care is second to none. They meet mum’s needs above and beyond. We wouldn’t want mum to be anywhere else” and “The care my friend receives is without exception, faultless.” Relatives told us their relations became calmer and more relaxed than they had been in some time when they came to live at Beaconville. A health professional told us, “Beaconville are the absolute specialists in dementia care and they are by far the best home in the area and have been for many years.”
There was a very strong person-centred culture and staff really understood that people, their views and their wishes were what mattered most. We observed many positive and caring interactions between staff and the people they were supporting. Staff showed patience and understanding when supporting people and they did so in a way that promoted their independence, choice and dignity.
People were relaxed in the company of staff and staff demonstrated good interpersonal skills when interacting with people. When people became upset, staff knew the best way to reassure and support them until they became less anxious. It was clear staff knew people well.
People's lives were enhanced because staff demonstrated a responsive approach to ensuring people’s skills and hobbies were continued, so people felt valued and important. Beaconville focused on the individual and their experience of dementia and aimed to offer as much stimulation as possible. People had many opportunities to be involved in a variety of activities and these were adapted to people’s needs and preferences to suit each individual.
Beaconville was well led and had an experienced and skilled registered manager in post, which provided stable and consistent leadership. Relatives and staff had confidence in the leadership of the home. It was clear the registered manager acted as a strong role model, was inclusive, and communicated well with staff, people and relatives.
People who could, told us they felt safe. One person said, “Do I feel safe? Well yes.” Without exception, every relative we spoke with during the inspection described Beaconville as safe.
People were protected from abuse because there were systems and processes in place to identify and report issues of concern. Staff had received training in recognising and reporting abuse.
People's needs were met because the home had sufficient numbers of suitable skilled staff to meet their needs. The atmosphere in the home was peaceful, calm and organised and staff spent time with people. People received their medicines safely and on time from staff who were trained and assessed to manage medicines safely.
Assessments were undertaken to identify people's care, health and support needs. There was a strong emphasis on person centred care. People and their families were at the centre of decision making whilst working alongside professionals to get the best outcomes possible. Care plans were developed with people and relatives to identify how they wanted to be supported.
The registered manager was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and was following the requirements in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
There was an on-going programme of repairs, maintenance and servicing to maintain safety and continually improve the environment of the home. The premises were well managed to keep people safe. For example, staff were familiar with actions to take to protect people in the event of a fire or other emergency. People were protected from cross infection by good standards of cleanliness and hygiene.
The inspection took place on 6 and 11 January 2016 and the first day was unannounced.
Beaconville Nursing Home provides nursing care for up to 36 people. The people living at the home had a wide variety of care needs, some people were living with dementia and others were receiving end of life care. Some rooms were shared. At the time of the inspection 29 people were living at the home.
There was 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.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. The service was not depriving people of their liberty unlawfully and worked within the principles of the MCA and DoLS. However, some of the assessments to assess people’s capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment had been recorded in a general sense rather than with regard to a specific decision, such as whether to continue to take medicines.
Staff knew people well and were able to describe people’s preferences and the care and support they required. However, some of this information was not always detailed in the care plan. People and their relatives had been involved in making decisions around the care they needed and wished for. The changing needs of people were reviewed on a regular basis and people and their relatives were encouraged to be involved in this.
Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and knew the procedure for reporting any concerns both inside and outside of the service. Although we witnessed one nurse take medicines to more than one person at a time, which is not considered good practice, generally the home managed people’s medicines safely.
People were supported by staff who were safely recruited and who felt supported and valued in their work. There were enough staff on duty to safely meet people's individual care needs. Staff that were well trained, had been inducted effectively and received regular supervision. New staff were in the process of completing the new Care Certificate.
Team work was evident and staff told us they were happy working at Beaconville Nursing Home. They felt able to voice their opinions and told us they were well supported in their roles. They demonstrated a good knowledge of the people they supported and they assisted people with kindness, compassion and respect. People's dignity and privacy was maintained and respected.
People had access to a variety of healthcare professionals and staff were prompt at requesting advice and intervention as required. The GP held a surgery at the home each week, to review people’s care needs and provide advice for staff. Healthcare professionals told us the home was “excellent” in the care and support they provided.
The service encouraged people to maintain relationships with others and the service actively welcomed family members and visitors to the home. An activity co-ordinator planned a variety of activities throughout the week and spent time with people who were being care for in their rooms.
The culture was one of respect, professionalism and openness. People felt listened to and were confident any concerns they may have would be addressed. Effective systems were in place to monitor the service and the management team played an active part in gaining feedback from people on a regular basis.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, understood their preferences and worked alongside people to meet their individual needs.
We found people had their needs assessed and were well cared for. People had a range of activities they could engage with if they wished to help stimulate them and occupy their time.
Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of safeguarding vulnerable people. Care plans detailed people's risks and the staff knew how to support people to reduce potential risks.
Staff enjoyed their work and this was evident during our inspection. Staff received informal and formal supervision as required and they had access to further training and development opportunities.
There was a complaints policy in place which was followed.
We spoke with the relatives of three people that were visiting on the day of our inspection. One person told us the home provides 'wonderful care. They assessed my relative in their previous placement. They couldn't walk when they came here but they are now walking again. The staff are always here for me and my relative, they are just so caring'.
We were informed that the GP reviews medication at least six weekly but often this will be more frequent if required. There is a good relationship between the staff and GP. Respect by the GP for the observational skills and judgement of staff had led to reductions in medication which allowed people to be as active as possible.
During our visit we saw staff spending time with people on an individual basis and having conversations that were meaningful. Staff were attentive and responded quickly to situations offering help if required.
We saw that the organisation actively asked for feedback about the service they were providing and took action in response to this feedback
There was friendly and sensitive interaction between staff and people using the service. Several people were seen to smile and respond positively when the staff engaged with them.
People looked well cared for, relaxed and comfortable.
We were told by relatives that they felt people were very safe living at the service. They told us that people were looked after very well. They added that staff treated them in a a respectful manner and always attended to their personal care needs in private. Relatives said that staff always listened to what they had to say and would do as they were asked. They stated that all the staff at the home were very kind and looked after them well.
The home was clean and tidy.
We were told that there were always enough staff around the home when they needed them.
People said they knew how and to whom to complain.