We carried out a review of the data available to us about Beacon House 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 Beacon House, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service: People consistently told us they were happy and felt safe living at Beacon House. Relatives had confidence in the service and told us the home was well managed. One person said, “I’m very happy here and I feel looked after.”
People were treated with kindness and compassion and supported to express their views and make decisions about their care. People and their relatives felt comfortable raising complaints and were confident these would be listened to and acted on.
People were protected from potential abuse by staff who had received training and were confident in raising concerns. There was a thorough recruitment process in place that checked potential staff were safe to work with people who may be vulnerable.
Risks had been appropriately assessed and staff had been provided with information on how to support people safely.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems supported this practice.
People received personalised care from staff who knew them well and understood how to meet their needs. Care plans contained information about individual preferences and what was important to people such as interests and activities.
People’s medicines were managed, stored and administered safely and appropriately by staff who had been trained and assessed as competent to do so.
People's privacy and dignity was respected, their independence promoted, had access to healthcare professionals when required and were supported to maintain a balanced healthy diet.
People were supported by staff who had completed a range of training to meet their needs. Staff told us they felt well supported by the home’s management team.
The registered manager continued to carry out a regular programme of audits to assess the safety and quality of the service. The home was clean, well maintained and people were protected from the risk and/or spread of infection as staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE).
Rating at last inspection: The home was previously rated as ‘Good.’ The report was published on the 30 November 2016.
Why we inspected: This inspection was scheduled based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the home through the information we receive until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
This inspection took place on the 29 September and 3 October 2016, the first day of our inspection was unannounced. One adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. Beacon House was previously inspected in December 2013, when it was found to be compliant with the regulations relevant at that time.
Beacon House did not have a registered manager at time of our inspection. There had not been a registered manager in post since March 2016. Following the inspection the registered provider confirmed a new manager had been appointed and they had started the process to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 deputy manager, who had worked at the home for a number of years, managed the home on a day-to-day basis. A senior manager who was overall responsible for the management of the home supported the deputy manager.
People said they felt safe and well cared for at Beacon House, their comments included “I do feel safe” and I’m very happy”. Another said the staff were “very kind and looked after me very well”. Relatives said they did not have any concerns about people’s safety. One relative said “I have no concerns about the care [person’s name] receives, they really care about people and it shows”. Another said, “you couldn’t wish for better care”.
People were protected from abuse and harm. Staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and demonstrated a good understanding of how to keep people safe. The policy and procedures to follow if staff suspected someone was at risk of abuse or harm were displayed. This contained telephone numbers for the local authority and the Care Quality Commission. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns and were confident these would be dealt with. Recruitment procedures were robust and records demonstrated the home had carried out checks to help ensure staff employed were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Everyone we spoke with felt the staff were well trained and able to meet their needs.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Some of the people who lived at Beacon House were living with a dementia, which affected their ability to make some decisions. Staff had received training and demonstrated a clear understanding of the principles of the MCA in their practice. Staff sought people's consent and made every effort to help people make choices and decisions. However, not all the records we saw demonstrated that best interest decisions were specific, made in consultation with appropriate people, such as relatives or were being reviewed. We raised this with a senior manager who agreed the way the home was currently recording best interest decisions was not as clear as it could be and told us they would change the way best interests decisions are recorded in future.
People told us they were happy living at Beacon House, staff treated them with respect and maintained their dignity. Throughout our inspection, there was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere within the home. Staff spoke affectionately about people with kindness and compassion. People and relatives told us they were involved in identifying their needs and developing the care provided. People's care plans were informative, detailed and designed to help ensure people received personalised care. Care plans were reviewed regularly and updated as people's needs and wishes changed. Staff consistently used people's preferred names when speaking with them and knew how each person liked to be addressed. When staff needed to speak with people about sensitive issues this was done in a way that protected their privacy and confidentiality.
People received their prescribed medicines on time, in a safe way. There was a safe system in place to monitor the receipt and stock of medicines held by the home. Medicines were disposed of safely when they were no longer required. Staff had received training in the safe administration of medicines.
Risks to people's health and safety had been assessed and regularly reviewed. Each person had detailed risk assessments, which covered a range of issues in relation to their needs. Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) and the provider had contingency plans to ensure people were kept safe in the event of a fire or other emergency. The deputy and senior manager carried out a range of health and safety checks on a weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis to ensure that any risks were minimised.
People told us they enjoyed the meals provided by the home. Comments included, “the food is marvellous”, “It’s great” and “very nice”. One person said, “we even have old fashion egg custard; all you have to do is ask”. People were freely able to help themselves to snacks and drinks when they wanted, and we saw people who were not able, being offered snacks and drinks throughout the day.
People spoke positively about activities at the home and told us they had the opportunity to join in if they wanted. The home had a programme of organised activities that included arts and crafts, music sessions, exercise classes, quizzes, singing, reminiscence and trips out to places of interest in the home’s minibus.
People, relatives, and staff spoke highly of the management team and told us the home was well managed. Staff described a culture of openness and transparency where people, relatives and staff, were able to provide feedback, raise concerns, and were confident they would be taken seriously.
The home had notified the Care Quality Commission of all significant events that had occurred in line with their legal responsibilities. Records were stored securely, well organised, clear, and up to date.
We have made a recommendation that the provider seek guidance to refresh their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act.
People who lived at the home told us that they were happy and enjoyed being there. One person said "It's the best place to be, I love it here". A relative said "I can't fault it, I visit frequently and notice how kind and caring the staff are to all the residents here". Another relative said "I notice staff offering a reassuring hand or sitting chatting to residents during the day time".
Many people who use the service have dementia. We spoke with the home manager, some staff members and a visiting professional quality auditor and we were told about the training staff receive in this area and shown copies of certificates obtained by staff members who had attended courses about dementia. We felt that staff had a good understanding of this condition and how to work effectively with people who suffer from dementia.
When we visited we met the district nurse who was a regular visitor to the home and a local GP. An external quality auditor has been appointed by the homes owners to provide support to the manager and guidance to ensure that the home provides a good quality and properly run service. This demonstrated to us that the homes owners value the help of external agencies and work well with them to provide a good holistic service.
People who lived at the home we spoke with told us they were looked after well. One said “The staff are very kind to me, they are exceptional”. People said they were treated with respect.
Many people who lived at this home had dementia. Staff had a good understanding of how to meet each person’s individual and diverse physical and mental health needs.
We saw clear evidence of the involvement of external healthcare and community support services. We saw that people had opportunities to participate in some activities of their choosing. We saw that people were consulted about what they wanted to do, and about how they wanted their care to be delivered.
We saw that people were relaxed in the company of staff. They were kept safe from abuse because staff knew about abuse and how to report this. Staff training, supervision and annual appraisals were linked to ensuring that staff had the skills to meet people’s needs.
Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to manage risk. These included listening to feedback from people and their relatives, and arranging for independent analysis of incidents and events.
We met with or saw most of the 27 people living at the service at the time of our visit. We spoke with four people living at the home in some depth; one person told us, 'I am very happy here. I have made friends.' Another person told us they enjoyed the food and the outings in the mini bus. Other positive comments related to people's private rooms, which were personalised; the cleanliness of the home and the staff, who were described as 'respectful and friendly'. However some people felt that 'some staff were better than others'.
A number of people living at Beacon Court have a dementia type illness and do not have the ability to express their views on whether their privacy and dignity was respected, whether their care needs were met or if they had choice.
We observed the care delivered to people living at the home, looking at what support people got and whether they had positive experiences. We also spoke with two visiting relatives, three visiting health professionals, care and ancillary staff and the acting manager and the representative of the company.
Overall we saw that people were treated respectfully by staff. People's privacy was maintained and basic choices, for example what people ate, were promoted. However, people's preferences in relation to their individual needs and routines were not being met or recorded consistently. People with a dementia type illness had little or no meaningful activity or occupation during the day.
Visiting family members said they were happy with the service provided. One relative told us, 'The care my wife receives is excellent'.
We found that care plans did not always contain up to date and detailed information about people's changing needs. We also found that staff had not received the training necessary to enable them to meet people's changing needs, particularly in relation to pressure area care and pressure ulcer prevention.