You are here

Beechwood Place Nursing Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 12 November 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Beechwood Place is a care home providing personal and nursing care to 35 older people living with a range of health care needs. Some people required support with memory loss and dementia, whilst others were reliant on care staff to assist them with their personal care and health needs. At the time of our inspection there were 34 people living at the service.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

Systems were in place to ensure people were protected from abuse, any concerns were investigated. Risks linked to people's care were monitored. Environmental risks were considered. Staff recruitment was robust and people received care from staff who knew them well and had relevant experience. People were supported appropriately with their medicines.

People's care was based on an assessment of their needs and their choices. Staff had access to a range of training and support. People were supported to regularly access health care service to maintain their wellbeing. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported by staff who had a good understanding of their individual needs and preferences. People were encouraged to make day to day decisions and given meaningful opportunity to participate in care decisions. People's privacy and dignity were respected and upheld.

People's care plans were person centred and contained detail about how they should be supported, and we witnessed staff following this guidance. Staff understood people's communication needs. People were supported to engage in a range of individual and group activities. There had been no recent formal complaints recorded. Information on people's end of life choices were recorded.

Staff felt supported and said management were always available. Appropriate checks and quality audits were undertaken. People’s views were sought to help improve the service.

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was Good (published 16 June 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the rating of the service at the last inspection.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 9 May 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 9 May 2017 and was unannounced. This meant the registered provider and staff did not know we would be visiting the service.

Beechwood Place Nursing Home provides nursing care to older people. The home is a large converted property situated in the Norton area of Malton. There are a variety of communal spaces for people to spend their time. The home can accommodate up to 35 people with some rooms providing shared accommodation. At the time of this inspection there was 28 people living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in October 2016. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 comprehensive inspection on 15 February 2016, we identified a breach of regulation. The registered provider had failed to provide sufficient staff to meet people’s needs at key times of the day. Staff had not been supported in their roles and regular supervisions and appraisals had not taken place. At the time of the last inspection there was no registered manager in place. We asked for and received an action plan telling us what the registered provider was going to do to ensure they were meeting the regulations.

At this inspection, we found the registered provider had implemented their action plan and progress had been made. There was a registered manager in place. We found there was sufficient staff on duty to provide support when people needed it and people told us that staff responded to their needs in a timely manner. The registered manager had implemented a regular system of supervisions and appraisals and staff told us they were well supported by management. We found the registered provider was no longer in breach of regulation.

Pre-employment checks on employees were completed that helped to minimise the risk of unsuitable people from working with adults at risk. Staff confirmed they received induction training when they were new in post.

Staff had completed a range of training and this was delivered by a training provider through practical face to face sessions. Online training was also in the process of being implemented which staff would be able to access independently and told us that they were happy with the training provided for them.

People told us they felt safe. We found that people were protected from the risk of avoidable harm or abuse because the registered provider had effective systems in place to manage any safeguarding concerns. Staff received training on safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm.

Risk assessments had been developed and contained relevant information. We found that these were in place when required and had been regularly reviewed. Accidents and incidents had been thoroughly recorded and appropriate action had been taken to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

Where people required support with their medicines this was done safely and people received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored securely and assessments had been completed on staff that ensured they were competent completing this activity.

We checked and found the registered provider was working within the principles of the MCA and applications to deprive a person of their liberty had been submitted to the local authority in a timely manner. People consented to care and support from care workers by verbally agreeing to it.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. People's weights were monitored and recorded on a monthly basis. We observed a lunch time routine and found that support was provided in a dignified way. People spoke positively about the meals

Inspection carried out on 15 February 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 15 February 2016.

Beechwood Place Nursing Home provides nursing care to older people. The service is a large converted property. The majority of rooms are en-suite. There are a variety of communal spaces for people to spend their time. The service is registered to accommodate up to 35 people.

At the time of our inspection there were 34 people living there.

The service did not have a registered manager. 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 service did not always have sufficient staff to meet people’s needs at key times of the day such as when people wanted support to get ready for the day or retire to bed. Staff were rushed at times and they did not have regular supervision or annual appraisals. This was a breach of Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The service had an up to date safeguarding policy and staff understood how to identify types of abuse and who they should report their concerns to. Risks assessments and risk management plans were in place to support people to remain safe. People were supported to take their medicines safely. The service sought support from relevant health care professionals when required.

People told us the food was good. Despite this we saw some people had to wait longer than others to receive the support they needed to enjoy their lunch. We have made a recommendation about the dining experience for people.

The service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and sought consent from people before they provided support.

Staff knew people well and we saw care was kind, compassionate and dignified. People told us they felt well cared for. Care plans were person-centred and people and their relatives were involved in the development and review of their care.

There was a range of activities available to people. All of the people we spoke with were overwhelmingly positive about the activities co-ordinator and it was evident they were committed to ensuring people were supported to enjoy meaningful activities.

People knew how to make complaints and the service had a complaints policy. When complaints had been received these had been responded to and the manager and owner had met with people to discuss the concerns. This demonstrated a commitment to understanding and resolving people’s concerns.

Staff morale was low and some staff described a culture of favouritism and of not feeling supported by the manager. The manager told us the service had gone through a lot of change in the last 12 months and that had been unsettling for staff though they thought this was now improving. The provider was aware of the concerns and had ensured staff had the opportunity to give their feedback. The manager had failed to notify the CQC of two safeguarding referrals which they had raised with the local authority. This meant they had not always met the legal requirements of the CQC.

Despite these concerns the manager had developed robust systems to audit and evaluate the care people received this was done by a formal audit system and also a daily walk around and one relative provided positive feedback about the manager and their approach.