Beechwood Lodge

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 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 demonstrated a proactive and positive safety culture, underpinned by openness and honesty. Staff actively listened to safety concerns, investigated incidents, and reported events appropriately. Lessons were consistently learned and used to identify and embed good practice.

The registered manager carried out regular checks and audits to monitor the safety and quality of care. Accidents, incidents, and safeguarding concerns were analysed to ensure appropriate actions were taken, and to reduce future risks where possible. Information was communicated effectively across the home.

The provider worked collaboratively with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, where safety was actively managed and monitored. They ensured continuity of care, including during transitions between different services.

Staff made appropriate referrals to external services and supported people in accessing the care they needed. One relative shared, “It’s absolutely brilliant here. [Family member] wanders and recently had a fall. They got them to the hospital and couldn’t do enough for them.”

We received positive feedback from external professionals. The home worked closely with a range of services to meet people’s needs, including the ‘hospital at home’ team, to ensure people remained comfortable as they approached the end of life.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how best to achieve it. Staff focused on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live safely, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm, and neglect. Concerns were shared promptly and appropriately with relevant agencies.

The registered manager had good oversight of safeguarding concerns and reported them robustly. They worked with stakeholders to investigate and address any identified shortfalls.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood their responsibility to keep people safe. Staff felt confident raising concerns. Feedback from people and families indicated confidence in the way the home was managed and in the safety of the care provided.

The provider did not always work effectively with people to understand and manage risks.Staff did not consistently deliver care that was safe, supportive, and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

A range of risk assessments had been completed, and care plans were developed based on known risks. We observed that staff generally took action to mitigate risks, and they demonstrated a good understanding of how to support people safely. However, care plans did not always provide sufficient guidance on how to manage and reduce risks, and some had not been updated in response to changes in need.

The registered manager had identified these shortfalls and was taking action to improve the quality of care records. Staff told us that communication worked well and that any changes in people’s needs were clearly communicated within the team.

The provider identified and managed environmental risks effectively, ensuring equipment, facilities, and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The environment was clean, tidy, and well maintained. Maintenance staff were visible and carried out regular checks across the home. At the time of our visit, additional external window restrictors were being installed to reduce the risk of falls from height.

Regular servicing and maintenance of equipment were carried out by external professionals. Although two baths were temporarily out of use due to lifting equipment issues, alternative bathing facilities were available in each unit.The registered manager had a clear plan for ongoing improvements to the home’s décor.The registered manager was also exploring ways to enhance the environment in line with best practice for supporting people living with dementia.

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

Most staff told us there were sufficient staffing levels to meet people’s needs, although acknowledged this could be more challenging if people were poorly. A dependency tool was in place, and staffing levels were maintained in line with assessed needs. There was a consistent team of staff who knew people well and worked collaboratively to ensure appropriate support. Our observations showed that while staff were generally available, there were times when they were busy, task-focused, or not visible within the home.

People and families generally agreed that staffing levels were sufficient. One person commented, “The staff are as generally quick to assist me when I need them. When it’s busy, they could perhaps do with some more [staff].”

Staff were safely recruited, with appropriate checks completed. Staff received a variety of training to ensure they had the knowledge and skills needed to care for people. Staff completed a full induction and told us they felt well supported in their roles.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection effectively, taking prompt action to detect and control its spread.

The home was clean and well maintained, with domestic staff working throughout the day to address any incidents or unpleasant odours. Staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately when supporting people, and PPE was readily accessible. Laundry facilities were managed in line with infection prevention and control guidance to reduce the risk of cross-contamination.

The provider did not always ensure that medicines and treatments were safe or met people’s needs, capacities, and preferences.

While medicines were securely stored, improvements were needed to ensure they were kept at the correct temperature to maintain their effectiveness. Medicines that needed to be administered at specific times were not always given in line with guidance. Occasional medicines, such as those for pain relief, had supporting guidance in place, but further work was needed to personalise this to each person.

Where medicines were administered covertly, hidden in food or drink, there was information from the pharmacist and doctor confirming the arrangement. However, care plans required more detail to reflect how best to support each person with covert administration. It was not always clear that each medicine had been considered separately when making best interest decisions.

Staff responsible for administering medicines had received relevant training and had their competency assessed to ensure safe practice. We observed that staff were kind and patient when supporting people with their medicines.

Records of topical cream administration and the use of thickener in drinks were generally well maintained, and all medicine counts were accurate.