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

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were reviewed regularly. People and their relatives told us they were not frequently involved in such reviews, but any changes to care, for example following a medical appointment was shared with them.

The lifestyles team showed enthusiasm for support people with their interests and ensuring activities matched up to these. People told us the activities were meaningful and enjoyable.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked together to ensure people experienced smooth transitions between different parts of the service and did not have to repeat information unnecessarily. Assessments of people’s needs were shared appropriately, helping maintain consistent support when people moved between teams or accessed external services. There was a weekly GP ward round within the home where concerns could be raised. A new care coordinator had recently been recruited and would be attending these meeting for consistency.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and relatives told us staff explained things in a way they could understand and communication with staff was mostly positive. People had communication care plans in place which detailed people’s preferred communication style and any addition support they needed.

Staff described adapting communication styles depending on the needs of the person they were supporting. This included altering their tone and speech as well as understanding and adapting body language.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had systems in place to manage complaints. Complaints were documented and investigated. Lessons learned were identified and used to improve the service. These were shared with staff in order to mitigate risks.

Staff, resident and relative meetings took place where people told us the felt able to raise concerns. Relatives were provided with minutes from the meeting and had the opportunity to email any suggestions for the agenda.

Compliments were reviewed and shared with staff, recognising when positive care and experiences had been carried out.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Healthcare professionals described inconsistencies with timely information sharing. This meant there was a risk of delayed onward referrals and access to external support services.

One person told us, “I had to go to hospital yesterday for an x-ray and they found someone to take me which was very good.” This meant the person did not have to go alone. However, this was not consistent with information shared with the inspection team where a person had missed a hospital appointment.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People did not feel they were discriminated against but felt that staff lacked time to talk to them as they were too busy. This impacted on people’s experience and ability to build rapport. One relative told us, “There doesn’t seem to be enough staff and because [person] doesn’t make a fuss [they] seem to get left on [their] own. They rotate the staff and that means she can’t build a rapport with anyone.”

The home is assessable to all with lifts, garden access for the ground floor and balcony access on the upper floors, providing outside opportunities for all. People are supported to access different floors within the home if they wish to take part in different activities.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

End of life care plans lacked detailed information about how people wanted to be supported at the end of their life. They did not always reflect if discussions with people or their loved ones had taken place regarding future wishes or describe how they were involved.

Care plans did detail if people had RESPECT forms in place and if they were for Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).