Beechwood Place Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Governance systems monitored complaints, incidents, safeguarding concerns and accidents, with outcomes reviewed through audits, meetings and provider oversight. Records demonstrated lessons learned were shared with staff through supervision, competency assessments and team discussions to improve practice. The registered manager responded positively to feedback during the assessment and acted promptly when improvements were identified.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored. Electronic care records incorporated assessments, hospital passports, healthcare involvement and current risks, ensuring staff had access to up-to-date information when people's needs changed. Care plans evidenced coordinated working with GPs, learning disability services, dietitians and speech and language therapists. A local GP described the home as, “proactive and responsive” in supporting people's health and wellbeing.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff completed safeguarding, Mental Capacity Act and DoLS training, understood reporting responsibilities and had access to clear safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures supported by provider oversight. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how they managed DoLS within the service. Records showed applications had been submitted where people were potentially deprived of their liberty, the provider had oversight of DoLS authorisations and applications through governance systems, and staff considered the least restrictive options when supporting people. We identified some improvements were required to strengthen records of best-interest decision making and consultation relating to specific restrictive practices, however this did not affect people's day-to-day care or safety.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Care plans contained detailed risk assessments covering mobility, falls, nutrition, choking and equipment use, which were reviewed as people's needs changed. One person was supported to improve their mobility following a prolonged period of immobility, with risk management measures adapted as independence increased. People were able to participate safely in activities and opportunities that were important to them.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. Regular safety checks, maintenance programmes and certified inspections were completed for fire safety systems, lifts, hoists, bed rails, legionella controls and electrical equipment. A recent fire service inspection found the home satisfactory, and records demonstrated routine environmental monitoring and action planning. Minor environmental improvements to the laundry area identified during the assessment had already been recognised by managers and were being addressed.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staffing levels exceeded those identified through the provider's dependency assessment tool and staff completed mandatory training, competency checks and regular supervision. Recruitment records demonstrated appropriate pre-employment checks were completed before staff commenced employment. Staff and relatives consistently told us there were sufficient staff available to provide safe care and support.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Comprehensive infection prevention and control policies, training, cleaning schedules and audit systems were in place and supported through management oversight. Internal and external audits provided assurance that standards were maintained, including a local authority audit which achieved a positive outcome. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of infection prevention measures and leaders had identified and commenced improvements within the laundry environment.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people's needs, capacities and preferences. Care records contained detailed medicines information, including support requirements, allergies, PRN protocols and guidance for time-critical medicines. Medicines administration records reviewed during the assessment contained no unexplained gaps or omissions and medicines governance was supported through regular audits and competency assessments. People received their medicines safely as prescribed and staff understood their responsibilities in supporting medicines management.