Beach Road

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.This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Accidents and incidents were investigated, used to inform any changes to the service and the provider apologised when things went wrong. This was in line with their responsibilities under their duty of candor. Incidents were logged to enable any trends or patterns to be identified. Incidents were responded to appropriately and lessons learned were shared with the staffing team and the wider organisation.

Staff were able to talk about changes they made following incidents which supported people to have better outcomes. For example, how staff making slight changes to their wording or approach helped a person to accept support without becoming anxious.
 

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. People were supported by safe systems that reduced the risk of harm and supported continuity of care.

Risk assessments and support plans were detailed and reviewed and detailed significant health conditions. Health appointments were arranged in ways that reduced anxiety, such as clinicians visiting people at home rather than attending busy environments. Where people accessed community activities, staff planned support carefully to ensure safety while promoting independence and choice. Systems supported safe transitions within daily routines and healthcare pathways. A health professional told us, “If I ever required assistance (and I have on occasion), it has been readily given.”
 

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 understood their responsibilities for safeguarding and where they had concerns, they raised these appropriately meaning action could be taken if required. Staff members told us how they would pick up on potential signs of abuse and report them. One said, “I would made sure the person was safe, then report it straight away.” Managers and staff understood their responsibility to report concerns within the service and to external authorities where required.

Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were protected when issues around capacity had been identified. Mental capacity assessments had been conducted and recorded to determine whether they had capacity to make specific decisions about their care. There was easy read MCA guidance in the office available to staff to aid their understanding.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were completed appropriately and in people’s best interests with minimal restrictions. Where people had a DoLS in place, conditions to their authorisations were being met.
 

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 was a positive and proportionate approach to risk that supported people and respected the choices they make about their care. For example, specific risk assessments had been completed on activities people engaged in outside of their home, so they could participate in things that mattered to them. Staff knew people well and supported them using personalised approaches that reflected their communication needs and preferences. Positive behaviour support focused on understanding the reasons for behaviours and reducing restrictive practices. Families were involved where appropriate, and staff worked in partnership with them to review risks and promote positive outcomes. Staff were clear about people’s assessed risks and the detail in the written records supported staff knowledge. The registered manager told us knowing people well and involving their families and other professionals helped to ensure positive risk assessment.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The environment layout allowed people to be able to move around freely, and shared areas were being used. The registered manager told us that redevelopment and upgrading of the environment was ongoing, for example, redecoration to the hallways, stairs and landings had been completed and shared areas were newly refurbished.

Risks associated with the safety of the environment and equipment were identified and managed appropriately. Regular checks to ensure fire safety had been undertaken and people had personal emergency evacuation plans which informed staff of how to support people to evacuate the building in the event of an emergency.
 

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.

We observed enough staff to support people on a one-to-one basis. This included supporting people to go out and about as they wanted. Staff told us there were enough of them and they were a cohesive team. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and the team leaders, one staff saying, “100% supported, they are stars.” Staff also told us they felt supported by the wider organisation. A relative told us, “[Name of loved one] has excelled under the care of the registered manager and the team.” Staff talked of their training and induction with enthusiasm and demonstrated their knowledge of good support throughout our visits.

The provider had an effective system for recruiting staff which included, appropriate checks had been completed prior to staff starting work which included checks through the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions
 

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. The service followed infection prevention and control practices to reduce the risk of infection.

Staff were observed washing their hands appropriately. Cleaning schedules and records were in place, and the service was clean and tidy. Food safety checks were completed, and laundry processes supported cleanliness and hygiene. These arrangements helped protect people and staff from avoidable infection risks.
There were policies and guidance in place and staff had access to personal protective equipment and training as needed. The house was clean and generally well maintained.
 

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.
The provider ensured people’s medicines were managed, administered and stored safely. Staff had received training in medicines and practice competency checks in administration were completed regularly.

Medication Administration Records (MAR) showed that people received their medicines as prescribed, and these records were completed accurately. PRN protocols were in place for medicines which were prescribed on a ‘when required’ basis. Medicines administration records were clear and included photographs to reduce the risk of error. Regular audits were carried out to ensure there was enough stock and that storage was appropriate.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people’s medicines and health conditions and followed safe practices when administering regular and as-required medicines. Staff ensured people received their medicines in a way which suited the person and explained what was happening at the time of giving medicine. We saw people were content to receive their medicine from staff.

Managers and staff ensured people’s medicines were regularly reviewed by their GP’s.