Beacon House

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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

The provider had effective systems to safeguard people from abuse. Safeguarding issues were logged and referred to agencies such as the Local Authority and CQC when required. Relatives said their loved ones received safe care and support. Comments included, “Everything the staff team do is positive.” Staff were trained and knew how to report any concerns and were confident any concerns raised would be dealt with appropriately.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to consent to care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. Records of DoLS authorisations were clear, and care plans showed evidence of capacity assessments and best-interest decisions. Staff we spoke with understood the principles of the MCA and DoLS and confirmed they had received relevant training.

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.

Systems were in place to minimise the risk of avoidable harm. Care records were detailed and included risk assessments with guidance for staff on managing those risks. These assessments were reviewed regularly and updated when people’s needs changed. For example, a person on a dementia care pathway was observed by staff to have a reduced food intake, which posed a risk to their health. The concern was promptly escalated, and the person was referred to a dietician for specialist intervention. This timely action resulted in the implementation of an appropriate dietary plan, which supported the person’s nutritional needs. Where people displayed incidents of distress, staff were trained to safely manage these incidents.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

The manager and staff demonstrated kindness, compassion, and respect in their interactions, and understood the people they supported. One relative told us, “Timing is very important to my loved one and can be a cause of distress if it does not happen at the time it is planned for. Every activity is on time; the staff team are very aware of the importance of being on time.” The manager told us sufficient staff were deployed to support people, and this was confirmed by the staff we spoke with. Recruitment processes were robust, and relevant checks were in place.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.