You are here

Archived: The Beacon Intermediate Care Unit Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 July 2018

The inspection took place on 27 June 2018 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 22 and 23 May 2017, the service had an overall rating of ‘Requires Improvement.’ We had found concerns with medicines management and governance systems. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions, Is the service safe and well-led? to at least good. We received a comprehensive action plan. At this current inspection, we looked at the previous breach of regulations and the action plan to check that improvements had been made and sustained over a period of time. We found good improvements had been made.

The Beacon Intermediate Care Unit is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The Beacon Intermediate Care Unit is registered to accommodate 27 people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection 20 people were using the service. The service provides short term reablement to maximise the independence of people and enable them to return to living in their own home in the community. The service comprises care, therapy (occupational therapy and physiotherapy) and social work intervention all based in the same building. The service also provides a range of facilities and equipment to support people’s reablement needs.

The service had a new 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.

We found improvements had been made to the medicines management systems to ensure they were safe. Staff administration and recording practices had improved through additional training, assessment, supervision, participation in work-shops and regular meetings.

Quality assurance systems had been reviewed and maintained since the last inspection and we saw action had been taken when issues had been identified. The provider had worked hard at implementing positive changes and was committed to ensuring improvements were sustained and developed further, to ensure people received high quality care. Staff described the culture of the organisation as open and management as supportive and approachable.

A robust recruitment process was in place, which ensured staff had the necessary values, skills, experience and were suitable to work with people who used the service. Staff received the training and support they needed to carry out their roles and meet people’s needs. The provider monitored staffing levels regularly, to ensure staffing levels were sufficient and staff deployment was effective.

Staff had received training and had procedures to guide them in safeguarding people from the risk of harm and abuse. In discussions, staff were clear about how they would escalate concerns and which agencies they would contact for advice.

People told us they felt safe. Staff had completed assessments with people to identify risk areas and the steps required to minimise risk. People received care tailored to meet their individual needs and the care recording systems were being fully transferred over to the electronic format.

The service was operating within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s health and nutritional needs were met. Records showed people had access to a range of community healthcare professionals for advice and treatment. These i

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 26 July 2018

The service was safe.

Improvements had been made to ensure the management of medicines was safe. Risks to people had been identified and assessed and there was guidance for staff on how to keep people safe.

Staff knew how to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and how to pass on concerns to relevant agencies. There were good standards of hygiene.

There was a robust recruitment system and sufficient staff deployed to meet people�s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 July 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had completed a range of training which enabled them to meet people�s assessed needs.

People were supported to eat a healthy diet of their choosing. People�s health needs were met and relevant health care professionals were contacted in a timely way.

People�s consent was gained before care and support was provided. The provider adhered to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when establishing capacity and decision-making.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 July 2018

The service was caring.

There were positive comments from people who used the service and relatives about the kind and caring approach of staff.

Staff treated people with respect and supported them to maintain their privacy and dignity. People�s independence was well promoted and they were fully supported to engage in their reablement programmes.

People were provided with information and explanations, so they could make choices and decisions about aspects of their lives.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 July 2018

The service was responsive.

Staff promoted inclusion and encouraged people to mix with each other. People told us they enjoyed the range of activities provided.

Personalised care and support was delivered by staff and relevant professional to help maintain people�s health and well-being.

There was a complaints procedure on display and people felt able to raise issues, which were appropriately addressed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 July 2018

The service was well-led.

The quality monitoring programme had been reviewed and strengthened to drive improvements with service delivery. Quality assurance systems highlighted shortfalls and appropriate action had been taken and improvements sustained.

The culture of the organisation was open and responsive to improvements. A new registered manager was in post and staff reported approachable and supportive line management and senior management. People, relatives, staff and professionals told us the service was well-managed.