Beech Lodge Nursing Home

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 72 (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.

The service demonstrated a positive approach to learning, with a strong focus on incident monitoring and governance. Incidents were subject to clinical review, and there was evidence of proactive work to reduce risks, including falls reduction initiatives. Team meeting minutes confirmed that incidents and key updates were routinely shared with staff, supporting a culture of openness and ongoing learning. Staff understood how to report concerns and described appropriate escalation processes, helping to maintain people’s safety.

There was clear evidence that care had been adapted in response to incidents, for example through the introduction of hip protectors and increased monitoring, demonstrating that learning was used to inform practice.

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.

The service demonstrated effective systems to support safe transitions for people, including structured admission and discharge processes. Care plans were developed in a timely way following admission, helping to ensure that people’s needs were clearly documented and care was delivered consistently from the outset. This supported continuity of care and helped to reduce risks during periods of transition.

There was good evidence of multidisciplinary involvement, with healthcare professionals engaged in assessing and reviewing people’s needs. This contributed to well-coordinated care and ensured that people benefited from a range of professional input.

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.

People told us they felt safe living at the home. One person told us, “I do feel safe. It is because the staff are always here and they come into my room to see if I am alright. People were also clear if they had any concerns about their safety they could raise them with staff. One person said, “If I was concerned about my safety I would just speak to any of the staff.”

The provider demonstrated effective safeguarding practices, with staff showing clear knowledge of safeguarding procedures and escalation pathways. Staff described how they would recognise and report concerns, which supported the protection of people from harm. There was also a positive example of staff advocating for a vulnerable person to access cancer treatment, demonstrating a strong commitment to acting in people’s best interests and ensuring their needs were met.

Appropriate legal safeguards were in place, including Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which were actively monitored. The service followed up where authorisations were taking a long time to be approved, showing an understanding of the importance of maintaining lawful practice.

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.

People had been involved in planning how they remained safe and were clear on the guidance and support they needed. One person told us, “They have put a sensor mat in my room so they know if I am wandering around. They take me to the toilet when I need to go. They have said it is for my safety, so I think it is good. They come and see me in my room to make sure I am alright.”

The service demonstrated a positive approach to involving people in managing risks, including supporting choice and promoting independence. There was evidence of positive risk-taking, such as supporting a person with diabetes to make informed choices about their diet, showing that people were enabled to maintain control over their lives while risks were considered. Appropriate equipment was in place to support people’s safety, including sensor mats, falls prevention measures and repositioning plans, which helped to reduce identified risks.

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 service provided a clean and well-maintained environment, with regular safety checks and servicing in place to support the safety of people living there. Equipment and systems were routinely monitored, which helped to ensure that risks were identified and managed promptly. One person told us, “[Name] has bed rails to prevent them falling out. One of them was a bit loose and when I mentioned it the maintenance man came back immediately and sorted it.” During the inspection, issues identified with furniture safety were addressed immediately, demonstrating a responsive approach to maintaining a safe environment.

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.

People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs quickly and safely. One person told us, “When I do press my call bell, they come straight away so it doesn’t cause me any problems.” A relative told us how there was always enough staff available to support their loved one to eat safely.

The provider followed safe recruitment processes to help ensure suitable staff were employed to support people. Checks were in place prior to employment, which helped to promote people’s safety and wellbeing. Staff reported there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty and described strong teamwork, contributing to a consistent and supportive working environment.

Staff confirmed that training was up to date, enabling them to carry out their roles effectively and meet people’s needs. This supported the delivery of safe care and ensured staff had the knowledge and skills required in their roles.

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.

People told us they were happy with the standards of cleanliness and infection prevention and control in the home. One person told us, “They are totally on the ball with the cleaning. My room is always nice and clean, and they will change the sheets every week.” A relative said, “The other week they were barrier nursing someone and they were very good. There was a notice outside the room, so everyone knew to put their personal protective equipment (PPE) on before they went in. There were gloves, aprons and masks outside the room. I was impressed with the way they were managing it”

The provider demonstrated effective infection prevention and control practices. Staff were knowledgeable about IPC procedures and were able to describe how they maintained hygiene standards in their day-to-day work. This supported the safety and wellbeing of people living in the service.

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

People received their medicines on time and were kept informed on what each medicine was for. One person told us, “They have told me what I am taking, and I do get it on time.”

The provider had systems in place to support the safe management of medicines, including arrangements for controlled drugs and regular auditing processes. Risk assessments were in place for high-risk medicines, and there were established processes to support people with specific needs, including diabetes management and the use of covert medicines. These systems supported staff to administer medicines safely and meet people’s healthcare needs.

However, there were inconsistencies in practice. Guidance for, ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines was not consistently person-centred or sufficiently detailed to support safe and consistent administration. However, people did tell us they received their ‘as required’ medicines when needed. One person told us, “I get a lot of tummy ache and if I tell them they will get me something to help really quickly.”

In addition, concerns were identified in relation to medicines administration, with a topical treatment being used beyond the prescribed duration. This was followed up immediately with the doctor.