Beeston Rise Care Home Also known as Origin Care Homes (Beeston) Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs.

Care plans were holistic and included information regarding physical health, well-being and social support needs. Care plans were in place for specific needs, such as diabetes management and provided information to staff how to support and safely manage the condition.

Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated to make sure the information was current, and care, support and treatment was meeting people’s needs. They were person centred and included information such as people’s preferences for wake and bedtimes were recorded, however people told us these were not always followed, with staff occasionally supporting them out bed earlier or later than their preferred times.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care in line with current good practice. Staff had completed training relevant to their roles and the needs of people living at the service.

Staff were supported to develop their knowledge and skills so they could provide appropriate care to people residing at the home.

Staff knew people well and used their knowledge of people’s individual needs, preferences and communication methods when providing care and support. People and relatives thought that the staff employed at the home had the right skill and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

Feedback from professionals told us that information was not always readily available, and advice was not always implemented. External professionals told us they had to ask a number of times for information or observations to be completed. The provider was already aware of the feedback and had implemented an action plan in order to rebuild working relationships.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported with modified diets where needed and kitchen staff were aware of people dietary needs, likes and dislikes.
People did provide mixed feedback on the quality and choice of meals, however one person told us, “Today someone from the home was sitting downstairs with a group of residents talking about the food and discussing whether there were any changes needed.”

The provider employed an activities coordinator which people reported they enjoyed. There was evidence of activities both within the home, and where people had been supported to access the community. Some residents recently visited the seaside which they told us they enjoyed. We also received positive feedback of animals visiting the home. People spoke with warmth about this and told us they hoped to do this again soon.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and

consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Where people required special mattresses to manage and prevent pressure sores, care plans did not provide details on what the settings should be set to. We found one mattress to have been turned off which placed the person at increased risk of skin breakdown. We raised this with the provider who took immediate action.

People told us they either had not been involved in care plan reviews, or they had not been discussed with them for over a year. This meant we could not be assured that people’s expectation or understanding of what their care should involve was correct and as they would like it.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People were supported to understand information, communicate and make decisions about their life, care and treatment in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Staff demonstrated and understanding of the MCA and how they applied this in their day to day role.

People told us staff always asked for their consent prior to carrying out personal care. One relative told us, “When I have been there, they have always asked for permission [before providing care].”