You are here

Archived: Beech Hall Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 January 2016

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 21 October 2015. This was the first inspection we have carried out at this location.

Beech Hall is registered to provide accommodation for up to 64 people requiring nursing or personal care. Beech Hall is purpose built and is located in the Armley area of Leeds. The home is on three levels with lift access and has car parking to the front of the building. There is a selection of communal rooms throughout the building.

At the time of this inspection the home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were insufficient staffing levels to meet the needs of people. This was a breach of regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report. Most people living in the home told us they felt safe. The administration and supply of medicines was mostly well managed.

Staff received safeguarding training and were able to identify types of abuse and where they would report their concerns. People’s individual risks had been identified and assessed. We identified some gaps in recruitment checks, although the registered manager agreed to look at this.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals. People were given adequate nutrition and hydration and records to support this were robust. People expressed mixed views about the food provided for them.

People looked well cared for and staff demonstrated they knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. Staff were kind, caring and compassionate.

People’s care plans contained sufficient and relevant information to provide consistent, person centred care and support. People were supported with their healthcare needs. People enjoyed the activities throughout the day of our inspection. Complaints were recorded and responded to and learning outcomes were shared with people and staff.

The home was light and spacious and was found to be clean and free of malodours. Staff told us the home was well managed and the management team took an active interest in the quality of care people received. We saw there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 20 January 2016

The service was not consistently safe

The service did not have sufficient staffing levels to meet people’s needs.

Last employer references were not always taken as part of recruitment checks.

The supply and administration of medicines was mostly well managed.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 January 2016

The service was effective.

The service was meeting its legal responsibilities to people under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The service worked with other healthcare professionals to ensure people received treatment.

Staff received support through a robust induction, training programme and ongoing supervision and appraisals.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 January 2016

The service was caring.

People’s care plans contained information about individual needs, preferences and interests.

Staff knew the people they were caring for and communicated with people effectively.

We saw people were supported in a dignified and compassionate way which respected their privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 January 2016

The service was responsive

People who used the service, their families and other advocates were involved in reviews of care.

The provider had an activities programme which most people told us they enjoyed.

Complaints were recorded and responded to within stated timescales.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 January 2016

The service was well-led

Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and the provider.

The provider held regular meetings with people and their relatives and acted on their feedback.

Quality assurance systems were in place in the home to assess and monitor the quality of care provided.