The Beeches

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. We found that people’s assessments were thorough and detailed which reflected a person-centred approach tailored to every person’s unique needs. Care plans, health records, and behaviour support plans were robust, accurate, and regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected people’s current assessed needs. These documents provided clear, specific guidance for staff, including detailed information about people’s individual communication preferences and requirements. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of each person’s needs and understood identifying potential triggers for distress, ensuring strategies to minimise these were embedded within support plans. There were effective processes in place to monitor and review people’s needs. Staff and leaders used a ‘resident of the day’ approach, which provided enhanced attention and care to people’s care and support plans.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Clinical assessments tools were in place where needed such as food and fluid monitoring tools, body positioning charts and weight charts. Referrals were made to other healthcare professionals for their expertise, such as speech and language therapists and GPs for advice on swallowing difficulties and diet. People had access to healthy and nutritious meals which met their needs and preferences. Where people had specialised diets, they were offered the same meal choice as every other person, with their meal being adapted to meet their needs. People and relatives told us the food was of good standard. One person said, “The food is very good. I can’t fault it.” A relative told us, “It is really good food and [relative] is eating very well. They eat better now than when they were at home."

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Staff worked with other health professionals to ensure they had all the information they needed to ensure people’s support continued when they were admitted to the service. When people moved from the service this was carefully planned to ensure continuity of care. A professional commented, “I often rely on staff’s knowledge and understanding of the residents to inform my assessments and staff seem to have a good understanding of people’s needs.”

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 told us staff contacted the GP for advice if they were unwell and supported them to attend healthcare appointments. A person told us, “I can see the doctor on their weekly visits if I need to and my family is informed of anything significant."

The provider monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. There was good oversight of people’s needs. Daily meetings were held which allowed staff to share key information and review any incidents that had occurred, and we saw referrals had been made for people who required additional clinical support, such as the local hospice, the mental health team and speech and language therapy (SALT). There were regular reviews by a health professional from the local GP surgery. The service’s oversight of falls and wounds was effective. The registered manager completed weekly wound and falls reviews, speaking with people and reviewing any injuries each day until they healed. Relatives told us they were kept updated with their loved one’s medical conditions. One relative said, “I am contacted if there are any issues with [relative’s] health. I know the doctor visits and that any issues would be addressed. I have no complaints.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s wishes and views were considered when their care was planned and people’s care plans detailed a person’s capacity, ability to consent and make decisions. Staff understood the importance of obtaining consent before delivering care and had received up to date training around the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).