Bethel House

Updated 19 October 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 11 and 12 September 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this kind of service.

Before this inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also checked other information we held about the home including previous inspection reports and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We spoke with 12 people who used the service, four relatives and one visiting health professional. We also spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, regional director, activities co-ordinator, chef and six care staff. We looked at a range of records which included the care records for six people, medicines records and recruitment records for five staff members. We looked at a range of records in relation to the management of the service, such as health and safety, minutes of staff meetings and quality assurance records.

Following the inspection, we also received feedback from two further healthcare professionals.

We last inspected the home in June 2016 where no concerns were found. The home was rated as good in all domains.

Updated 19 October 2018

This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 11 and 12 September 2018.

Bethel House is a ‘care home’ and is registered to accommodate up to 31 people. 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. At the time of the inspection, 22 people were accommodated at the home.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe at Bethel House and they were very much at the heart of the service. Staff enjoyed working at the home and understood the needs of people using the service and supported people in a personalised way. Staff knew people well and we saw that care was provided respectfully and sensitively, taking into account people’s different needs.

The staff were responsive to people’s needs and wishes. People were able to choose what activities they took part in and suggest other activities they would like to complete. The service developed and promoted community involvement within the home.

Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at the home to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. There were enough staff to keep people safe.

The risks to people were minimized through risk assessments. There were plans in place for foreseeable emergencies and fire safety checks were carried out.

People received varied meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and went out of their way to provide people with what they wanted.

Staff received regular support and one to one sessions or supervision to discuss areas of development. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role. New staff completed an induction programme before being permitted to work unsupervised.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and were clear that people had the right to make their own choices. Staff sought consent from people before providing care and support. The ability of people to make decisions was assessed in line with legal requirements to ensure their rights were protected and their liberty was not restricted unlawfully. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way; policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were cared for with kindness, compassion and sensitivity. Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support. This helped ensure people received personalised care in a way that met their individual needs.

The registered manager maintained a high level of communication with people through a range of newsletters and meetings. ‘Residents meetings’ and surveys allowed people and their families to provide feedback, which was used to improve the service. People felt listened to and a complaints procedure was in place.

Regular audits of the service were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service. There were appropriate management arrangements in place.