Background to this inspection
Updated
25 August 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
The inspection took place on 6 July 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and a specialist advisor. The specialist advisor was a nurse who had experience of wound and pressure care.
Before our inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service. The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a document that CQC asks providers to complete to give some key information about the service. The PIR tells us how they are meeting the standards and about any improvements they plan to make. We looked at this information as part of our planning. We also reviewed statutory notifications the provider had sent to us since the last inspection. Providers are required to send us notifications to inform us of certain events and incidents, such as serious injuries sustained by people living at the service. We also contacted the local authority safeguarding team and service commissioners to gather information they held about the service. We considered this information when we planned our inspection.
During this inspection, we spoke with five people who used the service and two relatives. We also spoke with three visiting professionals. We spoke with five care staff, the activities coordinator, the cook and the registered manager. We observed how staff interacted with the people who used the service throughout the inspection.
We looked at seven people’s care records to see if these records were accurate, up to date and supported what we were told and saw during the inspection. We also looked at staff records and records relating to the management of the service. These included complaints, accidents and incident records, medicines records and the provider’s self-audit records.
Updated
25 August 2016
Our inspection took place on 6 July 2016 and was unannounced. At the last inspection completed on 23 April 2015 we found the provider was meeting all requirements of the law. We did however identify improvements were required. We rated the service as requires improvement overall. During this inspection we looked to see if improvements had been made and sustained.
The service did not previously have a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. We found the service had appointed a registered manager.
At the last inspection we found further improvements were required to ensure sufficient staffing. During this inspection we found some improvements to staffing levels had been made and the provider continued to actively recruit staff.
At the last inspection the provider had not fully developed their quality assurance processes. During this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was continuing to develop these processes.
Beaumaris Court Care Home provides accommodation, personal and nursing care for up to 30 older people. At the time of our inspection the registered manager told us there were 26 people living at the location.
At the time of this inspection the provider was in administration and the management of the service was being overseen by another provider.
People told us they felt safe. We looked at people’s care records and saw that people had detailed risk assessments and plans in pace to manage risks in order to keep people safe. However, we found inconsistencies in the recording of care and support activities such as repositioning people where there were concerns relating to fragile skin. Records did not always reflect the needs of risk and this meant that there was a risk that people were not receiving appropriate care.
People received their medicines as prescribed and were given medicines by staff who were suitably trained. People’s medicines were stored safely and at the recommended temperatures.
People received care and support from a suitably trained staff team who had been recruited safely. Staff were subject to regular spot checks to ensure that they were competent to provide care. The registered manager had systems and processes in place to ensure that staff were kept up to date with their core training.
People were asked for their consent to care and support and the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being followed. Staff had a good understanding of the MCA but were not always aware of which people were subject to a DoLs.
People enjoyed the food available to them and were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink. Mealtimes appeared to be enjoyable and flexible and people had a choice of what they ate and drank. People’s specific dietary needs were catered for and specialist professional advice was being followed.
People were supported to access healthcare services when they needed to. People were supported by a staff team who were able to recognise changes in people’s health and well-being and knew how to report and respond to any changes.
People were supported by a staff team who showed kindness and compassion. People were supported to make decisions about how their care and support was provided. People were also supported to make decisions about how they spent their leisure time. People had choice and control over how they lived their lives.
People were treated with dignity and respect. The location had a dedicated dignity champion who delivered dignity awareness training sessions to staff. This member of staff also completed spot checks on staff’s ability to deliver care and support to people in a dignified way. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.
People and their relatives told us they did not feel actively involved in the planning and review of care. The registered manager told us that they had recently implemented a new scheme to try to improve this area of practice. We looked at records which confirmed that work in this area had commenced, however it was too early to establish the effectiveness of this.
People were supported to take part in a range of activities which they enjoyed. The provider employed a dedicated activities co-ordinator. People told us they were able to engage in a range of activities and relatives told us they were able to take part when they liked.
People were supported by a staff team who knew peoples care and support needs well and had an understanding of people’s likes and dislikes.
People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and felt confident that complaints would be effectively managed. We looked at complaint records and saw complaints were logged, responses recorded and actions taken to improve practices had been documented.
People liked living at the home. People, relatives and staff felt involved in the development of the service. People and their relatives knew who the registered manager was and staff felt supported by the registered manager.
The registered manager had systems and processes in place to monitor and analyse the quality of the service, and they used information from quality checks to drive improvement.