Beechwood Residential 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 did not rate this key question. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Systems were in place for learning lessons. For example, complaints and safeguarding issues were reviewed to see where improvements could be made. Incidents of behaviour that challenged the service were also reviewed with lessons learnt. This had contributed to a decline in such incidents. The provider had policies related to safeguarding adults, complaints and accidents and incidents which helped provide staff with guidance about how to respond to these issues.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

All of the people using the service at the time of our inspection had lived there for many years, there had not been any recent admission to the service. However, the provider had policies in place about this to guide practice in the future in the case of new people moving into the service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff were able to describe safeguarding processes they would follow to report concerns they might have. One staff member told us, “I understand the types of abuse such as physical, financial and sexual abuse. I am also taught that if I had any concerns, I could also raise them with people like the Care Quality Commission, the local authority or the police if I had to."

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

There were processes in place to help manage risk. People told us they felt safe using the service and staff understood the risks people faced and how to support them in a safe way. Risk assessments were in place, these set out the risks people faced and included information about how to mitigate those risks. Staff understood how to provide positive support to people who exhibited behaviours that challenged the service. Physical restraint was very rarely used as a last resort. This was detailed in people’s care plans and staff had undertaken training about it.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider failed to understand how a broken shower attachment meant that it could not be used as intended. Whilst the provider had carried out some works since our last assessment further work to improve the environment was required. Work required to repair walls damaged by damp needed attention and furniture we saw which was broken on our last visit had yet to be replaced. We discussed these issues with the manager who gave commitments to address them.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

There were enough staff working at the service to support people in a safe way. The manager told us staffing levels were agreed with the local authority based upon people’s needs. We saw that staffing levels on the day of inspection were in line with this.

The provider had robust staff recruitment practices in place. These involved carrying various checks on prospective staff, including employment references, proof of identification and criminal record checks.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

We saw cleaning schedules for the home and the manager showed us how staff were able to demonstrate how the tasks had been completed. There were areas which needed addressing that we raised with the manager. Damaged flooring in a person’s bedroom created an infection risk which had also been raised in a recent local authority infection control inspection. Items used for cleaning such as mops were stored in the back garden which the provider needed to consider relocating.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People’s medicines were stored and administered safely and systems in place for checking were robust to prevent mistakes from occurring. People’s medicines were regularly reviewed by health professionals ensuring they remained safe and effective for people to take.