You are here

Archived: Beenstock Home Management Co Limited Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 20 October 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on the 20 October 2015.

Beenstock Home Management Co Limited, is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care services, exclusively to members of the Orthodox Jewish community who live in a sheltered housing scheme. Accommodation consists of self-contained flats located within a registered care home for older people known as Beenstock Home. A number of facilities provided by Beenstock Home is also available for the use by tenants of the scheme and includes dining facilities and participation in organised activities.

There was no a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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. We spoke to the registered manager of Beenstock Home, who explained that due to a misunderstanding between the service and CQC Registration, an error in registering the manager had occurred. The service have since submitted an application to combine the registration of Beenstock Home and Beenstock Home Management Co. Ltd, which is currently being addressed.

When we last inspected this service in May 2014, we did not identify any concerns about the service.

During this inspection we found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We found the service undertook checks to monitor the quality service delivery. These included weekly medication record chart audits, however the last audit had been conducted on 26 September 2015. We looked at an Independent Monthly Home Audit, where records indicated the last audit had taken place in May 2015. Though care files were audited, the service had failed to identify missing risk assessments, which were identified as part of this inspection.

This was a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, good governance, because the service failed to assess and monitor the quality of service provision effectively.

People who used the service told us they felt safe, as did their relatives.

We found the service had suitable safeguarding procedures in place, which were designed to protect vulnerable people from abuse and the risk of abuse.

People were protected against the risks of abuse because the service had appropriate recruitment procedures in place. Appropriate checks were carried out before staff began work with the service to ensure they were fit to work with vulnerable adults.

We looked at how the service managed people’s medicines and found that suitable arrangements were in place to ensure the service administered medicines safely.

As part of this inspection we looked at the training staff received to ensure they were fully supported and qualified to undertake their roles. Staff we spoke with confirmed they received training both at induction and then annually through refresher training. They also have opportunities to attend other non-mandatory courses.

We found that before any care was provided, the service obtained written consent from the person who used the service or their representative. We were able to verify this by speaking to people and from reviewing care files.

People who used this service could choose whether to have meals in the dining room with residents from the care home or in their own flats. We spent time observing the lunch period to see how people were supported to receive adequate nutrition and hydration.

People we spoke with told us that the service was excellent and that staff were kind and caring.

People who used the service told us that they were treated with dignity and respect by staff.

People told us that staff helped them retain their independence. Staff we spoke with were clear about how to promote people’s independence.

The service ensured that staff effectively met the cultural and spiritual wellbeing of people who used the service.

We found the service had systems in place to routinely listen to people’s experience, concerns and complaints.

People who used the service were able to access a range of activities available on a daily basis.

We looked at a sample of six care files to understand how the service delivered personalised care that was responsive to people’s needs. We found that before people started using the service, a pre-assessment of need was carried out by the service, which included current diagnosis, medication, personal hygiene and continence.

We found that the management promoted an open and transparent culture amongst staff. Staff we spoke with were positive about the leadership provided by the service.

We found the provider was unable to demonstrate to us that the installation of the CCTV system had been installed in the best interests of people who used the service and that tenants, including people who lacked capacity had been effectively consulted.

Providers are required by law to notify CQC of certain events in the service such as serious injuries and deaths. Records we looked at confirmed that CQC had received all the required notifications in a timely way from the service.

Inspection carried out on 16 July 2014

During a routine inspection

Beenstock Home Management Co Limited, is a domiciliary care agency which provided personal care services, exclusively to members of the Jewish community who lived in a sheltered housing scheme. Accommodation was is in the form of self-contained flats located within a registered care home for older people known as Beenstock Home. A number of facilities provided by Beenstock Home were also available for the use by tenants of the scheme and included dining facilities and participation in organised activities.

At the time of our inspection 14 tenants lived within the scheme. As part of the inspection we spoke to five people who used the service, two visiting relative and one visiting health care professional. We also spoke to five members of staff.

Our inspection was co-ordinated and carried out by an inspector, who addressed our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they had no concerns about their personal safety. We found safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported.

People told us they felt their rights, dignity, cultural and religious needs were respected.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Staff knew about risk management plans and we looked at examples within care files. We found people were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough.

Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People�s health and care needs were assessed with them. People said their care plans were up to date and reflected their current needs.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with people being supported by the service. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was positive, comments included; �They are always happy to give me extra help.� �They are all very nice and helpful. I�m very satisfied with the service. They meet my needs and I feel at home here.� �They are respectful and sensitive, on the whole I�m very happy and satisfied.�

When speaking with staff it was clear that they knew the needs of each person they supported.

People who used the service completed a satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed by the service.

We found care and support had been provided in accordance with people�s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We looked at how complaints had been dealt with, and found that the responses had been open, thorough, and timely. People could therefore be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a coherent way. One visiting health care professional told us;� �Staff are very responsive, if I leave any required instructions it is always followed up.�

Is the service well-led?

The service had quality assurance systems to ensure high standards of care were maintained. Problems and concerns were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they felt supported by the service and were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

Inspection carried out on 20 November 2013

During a routine inspection

Tenants or their relatives had been asked about their consent to the care being delivered. Staff we spoke with told us they talked with tenants before carrying out any personal care or an activity to gain their permission.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured the tenant's welfare. Care plans had been updated regularly and if necessary changes were made to tenant's care plans.

We spoke with five tenants who lived at Beenstock and they all expressed satisfaction with the care and support they were given. One tenant said the staff were "Always kind and politeand did their best to support me any way they could".

The provider had a system in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

Inspection carried out on 9 July 2012

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with four people who use the service, one relative, and three members of staff. For the purposes of this report, the people receiving a supportive living service will be referred to as tenants.

A sheltered housing scheme is where people live in flats and receive care and/or support in order to promote their independence. The support that people receive is often continuous and tailored to meet their individual needs. It aims to enable the person to be as independent as possible, and usually involves social support rather than medical care.

The relative and tenants we spoke with were positive about the care and support provided by the staff. Staff were described as being patient and kind towards the tenants they supported. The relative spoken with felt satisfied their relative was safe and felt confident to raise any issues of concern at any time.

For part of this inspection we were supported by an Expert by Experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service. This person talked with a number of people who use the service at Beenstock Domiciliary Care Agency. The Expert by Experience completed a report after the inspection and some of their comments and observations are included in this report.

Inspection carried out on 20 February 2012

During a routine inspection

People using the service told us that the agency were meeting their care and support needs properly. They also said that they were involved and consulted about how they were cared for. People we spoke with told us the care staff treated them with respect and maintained their dignity. One person told us: "I am happy with the care I receive, I would complain if I didn't get what was right and I know they would do something about it."People we spoke with told us they were looked after by regular, reliable care staff.