Archived: Beaufort Lodge

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The service was currently closed to visitors however, there was a process in place in ensure any visitors to the service such as health care professionals or contractors, were screened for COVID-19 symptoms.

¿ People had been encouraged to keep in touch with their loved ones using various forms of technology. When allowed, the service facilitated garden visits for people.

¿ The service was closed to new admission at the time of our visit. The registered manager confirmed they were following government guidance and all new admissions were isolated in their rooms for 14 days.

¿ Staff were following government guidelines in the use of personal protective equipment [PPE] and good infection control practice. PPE was available throughout the service for staff to access.

¿ Staff and people living at the service had access to regular testing.

¿ There were cleaning schedules in place. The service was visibly clean.

¿ Infection control audits took place regularly to make sure staff and the environment complied with current guidance and practices.

There was 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.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People felt safe living at the service. Staff knew how to recognise abuse and how to report it. Risks were assessed so that staff knew what action to take to keep people safe. They did this while also promoting people’s independence and autonomy.

There were sufficient numbers of staff, with the required knowledge, skills and experience to support people with their needs. Recruitment processes were safe and this meant that so far as possible only people of suitable character and experience were employed.

Medicines were managed in a safe way. Staff had received training about this and knew the level of support people required with their medicine.

Staff were knowledgeable about the needs of the people they supported. People were supported to make choices around their care and daily lives. Staff had attended training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when assisting people.

Staff always gained consent before supporting people. There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and had a balanced diet. Staff worked hard to make each mealtime a positive and social experience. They supported people in a sensitive way. People had access to the healthcare professionals they required.

People were treated with kindness and compassion by the staff. Staff knew people well and often went that extra mile to make sure people were as comfortable as possible. People’s social needs as well as their physical and emotional needs were incorporated into their plan of care.

People and their relatives were involved in making decisions and planning their care, and their views were listened to and acted upon. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People knew how to raise concerns and had confidence that they would be listened to and action would be taken. Feedback provided was used to make improvements to the service.

People were complimentary about the registered manager and staff. It was clear that relationships between people and staff were positive and people had confidence in the service. There were effective quality monitoring systems. A variety of audits were carried out and this meant that any shortfalls were quickly identified and used to drive improvements.

Beaufort Lodge is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to twenty one older people who may need care due to living with some form of dementia. It does not provide nursing care.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manager 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.

People’s medication was well managed and people receive their medication as prescribed.

Staff showed a good knowledge of safeguarding procedures and were clear about the actions they would take to protect people. People were kept safe and risk assessments had been completed to show how people were supported with every day risks. Recruitment checks had been carried out before staff started work to ensure that they were suitable to work in a care setting. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty.

Staff had been offered training to help ensure they had the skills and knowledge required for their role as a care worker. They received regularly support and felt well supported by management.

People were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. They told us that the food was good and said that they were able to choose alternatives if they were not happy with the choices offered on the menus. People were supported to maintain good healthcare and had access to a range of healthcare providers such as their GP, dentists, chiropodists and opticians. The service kept clear records about all healthcare visits.

Meetings had been held for the people living at the service, relatives and for the staff. People felt listened to and that their views and opinions had been sought and the service had made appropriate improvements.

People had agreed to their care and had been asked how they would like this to be provided. They were treated with dignity and respect and staff provided care in a kind, caring and sensitive manner. Detailed assessments had been carried out and care plans were developed around people’s needs and preferences.

The service had a clear complaints procedure in place which was clearly displayed. This provided information on the process and the timespan for response.

The service was well managed and systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided.

We observed care being provided on the day of our visit and found that it was provided in accordance with people's individual needs. A relative we spoke with said, "The place is very homely and the staff are really caring and nice people and my relative is well looked after."

We found that medicines were managed in a safe way and stored in line with current regulations. Staff providing medication had received appropriate training and medicines were administered safely.

We found that improvements had been made in relation to the provision of equipment in the home through the purchase of a new hoist and two nursing beds.

We looked at staffing levels and qualifications and found that there were sufficient numbers of qualified staff on duty at all times. A relative we spoke with said, "The staffing levels here are good and they are well trained."

The provider had a satisfactory system in place to manage comments and complaints. The complaints policy was readily available for people to read. It was apparent from speaking to relatives that the manager and staff had a willingness to resolve any issues prior to a formal complaint being made.