The Care Quality Commission
  • Mental Health
  • Independent mental health service

Archived: Beech House

Fordham Road, Newmarket, Suffolk, CB8 7LF (01638) 578900

Provided and run by:
Huntercombe (Granby One) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

3 December 2014

During an inspection of this service

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

Our previous inspection of the service on 12 July 2013 and 18 July 2013 found that medicines were not beenwell managed and there was not enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

The manager sent us evidence of the action they had taken since our last inspection to make the improvements we asked them to make to ensure people received their medication and were supported by sufficient numbers of staff. We reviewed this information and were satisfied that people were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. Action had been taken to ensure there were enough staff to meet people's needs.

12, 18 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We spent time on four wards and spoke with seven people. We observed that people were treated with dignity and respect. People told us that they were mostly satisfied with the service and felt safe. One person said "It's alright here, it's ok'.

Some people said they did not have enough to do and felt that there were not enough staff to support activities in or outside Beech House. Staff told us there had been occasions when they felt that staff levels fell below what was needed to provide safe care. We saw that action had been taken to provide a more flexible rota and that new staff had been recruited, which meant staff levels were set to improve.

We saw the minutes of 'Residents Council' meetings facilitated by an advocate, which showed us that people who used the service were involved in making decisions about the day to day running of the service. The provider used questionnaires to gather the views of people who used the service. A survey found that whilst people were generally satisfied with the quality of the food there were comments about the portion sizes not being big enough and requests for more variety.

The framework for monitoring quality and safety of the service had improved. We saw that senior managers showed clear leadership and had made good progress in taking the service forward and improving the culture within and openly shared the need to ensure the work started continued and developed towards best practice in all areas.

13 December 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

This report is based on a visit that was carried out as part of a co-ordinated responsive inspection. We inspected four houses Chippenham, Denham, Exning and Burwell. We spoke with 11 patients using the service. They told us that they were happy with the care, treatment and support they were receiving. However, they told us that they were not happy with the agreed communal living arrangements around food and meal times. We found these 'House Rules' impacted on patients by restricting their freedom further than is agreed under their conditions of being detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.

Staff knew patients needs well and explained in detail the interventions they had tried and those that had been effective, in relation to their care and treatment. However, these were not reflected in patients care plans.

We spoke with two relatives by telephone to find out their views of the service. One relative confirmed that they were asked for their views about the care and treatment of their son. One relative said they felt their son's treatment had already been decided by Beech House staff or the Commissioning social workers. Both relatives told us that they were happy with the service their family members received.

17 January 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited this service in November 2011 as part of a targeted inspection programme in services that care for people with learning disabilities to assess how well they experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights. We found the service was failing to meet the needs of people in its care. We wrote to the provider informing them to make improvements in relation to the care and welfare of people who use the service. Our visit to the service on the 17 January 2012 was to see if the provider had made the required improvements.

We spoke with three people living in Exning unit and three people in Burwell House. People using the service and staff with whom we spoke told us that there had been significant improvement to the service since we last visited in November 2011. One person commented, 'I am much happier, things are not so restrictive, the food is better; staff are better and it is not so noisy'.

People living in Exning House told us that they had been consulted about the food provided at the service and confirmed that they have been able to make a choice if they want to stay on a healthy living diet. Two people told us they have chosen to remain on the diet and have their own special menus. The remaining people said they are able to choose what food they like, including snacks of their choice and that the food portions are now much better.

People told us that the internal doors within the house are no longer locked and that they had been able to access all areas of their home when they wanted to.

9, 10 November 2011

During a themed inspection looking at Learning Disability Services

Burwell House accommodates seven patients. We spoke with all of the patients to obtain an overview of how they felt about the treatment and support they were receiving. Comments included, 'The staff give me good care and take me out to do activities' and 'I think it's alright here, I have home visits' and 'I like living in Burwell House, I like the food, going for walks, bus rides and swimming.

Patients told us they were being supported to make healthy living choices, however one patient told us that staff had not acknowledged that they had chosen not to follow the health living plan anymore. Patients told us they had access to health professionals if they were unwell, and that they had an annual health check each year.

We asked all seven patients if they felt safe and secure living in Burwell House. Replies included, 'Yes, I feel safe' and 'I feel safe when I'm locked in my room, but I don't feel safe in the lounge if someone's playing up'. Patients told us that the staff talk to them nicely and properly, and that they tell them what is going on. Patients said that they had been given information, in an easy read format to help them understand what abuse was. One patient commented, 'I have had information from the police in the past and I asked staff for information on abuse and they gave me a package'. Another patient told us that, they had attended a training session where they were told about abuse. All of the patients with whom we spoke said they had not experienced or witnessed any one being abused.

We spoke with two parents who told us that their relatives had lived at Beech House for 10 to 12 years. Both parents stated that they 'Trust the staff at Beech House'. One parent said that they had experienced issues with their relative's previous placement, which had caused them to mistrust the service, although commented, 'I am happy with the care at Beech House and I have never seen any abuse'. They told us they do not want their relative to move out into the community, however they questioned if a secure hospital, such as Beech House was the right placement.

Parents gave us mixed information about contact with the service. One parent felt cut off because no one rings them to let them know how the week has been for their relative. They did acknowledge that if they were unable to make their relatives Care Programme Approach [CPA] reviews, they were sent notes following the meeting. The second parent told us they regularly attended their relatives CPA meetings and therefore felt more involved with their relative's treatment. One parent stated that their relative never mentions being bored, but they were not sure what happened at weekends or evenings. They told us that their relative comes home for weekends and has never appeared worried or concerned, and commented, 'Staff have time for my relative'. Both parents said they were unsure about a restraint policy or how it would be applied.