Beeton Grange

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.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them being admitted to the service. Staff confirmed they were kept updated regarding people’s needs and any changes. Systems were in place to share information across shifts, for example at handover and on the electronic care planning system.

Staff were able to describe people’s needs in detail and provided examples of how they would respond to people if they became distressed or upset.

People’s needs were routinely reviewed through weekly one-to-one meetings and monthly reviews or if a person’s healthcare needs changed.

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.

Staff spoken with understood people’s assessed needs and confirmed they were kept up to date with any changes in people’s care needs. People were referred to the local Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) team and a variety of other healthcare professionals. The service had access to their own psychologist to assist in analysing information for any patterns or trends in relation to individual risks to people and supporting the staff group.

Staff were aware of people’s dietary needs. Meals were produced by staff who came from similar cultural backgrounds to the people living at Beeton Grange and were able to replicate home-cooked food that people enjoyed. We observed people enjoying a variety of dishes, representing different cultures during the ‘Multi-cultural Day’.

A healthcare professional reported positively on the relationship the service had with them and how they responded to people’s healthcare needs. They told us “They [care staff] are proactive. My relationship with the service works well for me.”

Staff were able to describe in detail the needs of the people they supported, and it was clear they knew people well. On the whole, people’s support plans were detailed and informative providing a picture of people’s healthcare needs and how to support them safely and effectively. A member of staff told us “I always refer to the care plan and get a good picture of people [and their current needs] at handover.”

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 reported they worked alongside a number of healthcare professionals in order to meet people’s needs. A member of staff described how information was shared across shifts to build a picture of a person’s day. They told us, “We will have a meeting where they bring up all the aspects of the day shift and night shift and the correlation between the two and any difficulties are bought out and addressed at the meeting.”

Healthcare professionals reported good communication with the service and advised they were contacted in a timely manner by care staff if additional support was required.

We saw evidence to demonstrate appropriate healthcare services were accessed to meet 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 were supported to access a variety of healthcare services to enable them to live healthier lives. Support plans in place detailed people’s needs and how staff should respond to them. Weekly one-to-one meetings with key workers provided people with the opportunity to discuss their health and wellbeing.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff were aware of people’s needs and there were a variety of systems in place to monitor people’s assessed needs and outcomes such as weekly and monthly meetings with service users and healthcare professionals. People’s care was reviewed on a regular basis and action taken where necessary if there had been a change in people’s care needs.

We observed people living at the service got along well together and with the staff group who supported them. The service had a pleasant atmosphere and people and staff all commented positively on the ‘family’ atmosphere.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment, but they did not consistently ensure due process was followed.

Following a recent event at the service, a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard [DoLS] application had been submitted in respect of 1 person, in order to safeguard them from a potential risk. Staff were fully aware of the reasons for this and the actions they should take to keep the person safe. The registered manager had requested meetings and reviews with other professionals in order to support this process and the person using the service. However, whilst waiting for this support, the provider had failed to ensure there was a support plan and appropriate risk assessment in place in relation to this decision and the circumstances that led to it. This was raised during the assessment and action was taken to ensure the appropriate paperwork and processes were in place.

People were supported by staff who had received training in mental capacity and DoLS. We observed staff treat people with dignity and respect and obtain their consent prior to supporting them. A member of staff described how they obtained a person’s consent prior to providing personal care. They told us, “If [person’s name] is getting in the shower, I will say, ‘can I assist you?’ or they will ask me to wash their hair for them.”