You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 June 2018

We inspected the service on 10 May 2018. We contacted the provider 24 hours prior to our inspection to ensure someone would be at the service when we visited. Beechwood House 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. Beechwood House accommodates up to 10 people and is designed to meet the needs of people with a learning disability. On the day of our inspection 10 people were using the service.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. The aim is that people with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.

This was the first inspection at this location under the provider's current registration.

At this inspection we found that the service had not notified CQC of some incidents which had taken place at the service as required by law. We found that incidents were responded to in relation to keeping people safe but that some further improvement was needed to monitor incidents and take appropriate action. We have made a recommendation about this.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff were trained in this area of care and knew how to keep people safe.

Care and support plans contained relevant and up-to-date information, people's risk assessments had been regularly reviewed and updated and recorded the current risks associated with the delivery of people's care and support.

There were enough staff at the service to safely meet people's needs. Staff were safely recruited and supported in their roles and appropriate and relevant training was delivered to staff and regularly reviewed and updated.

People felt safe at the service with the staff who supported them and were protected against the risk of infection as we found the service to be clean and hygienic. People received their medicines safely and there were plans in place for any potential emergency situations.

The provider was following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and decisions had been made in consultation with people's representatives and documented as best interest decisions.

We found that people received care and support to meet their individual needs and that there was a culture of inclusion at the service. People's views were listened to and respected and people were involved in the day to day running of the service. People could spend their time as they chose and were part of the wider community. We found that people took part in activities both within the home and outside it and that this was actively encouraged by the service to ensure people lived meaningful lives and maintained their independence.

People's nutritional risks were assessed and planned for and people had a choice in what they had to eat and drink. People had access to various healthcare professionals to maintain their health and well-being.

People felt they could approach the management of the service should they need to raise any issues. Staff felt supported and were generally happy in their roles.

There were systems in place to monitor the service on an on-going basis and assess the quality of care and support being delivered.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 June 2018

The service was safe.

Incidents were being responded to ensure people's safety.

Risks associated with the delivery of people's care and support had been adequately assessed and planned for. People felt safe at the service.

Staff were safely recruited at the service and there was sufficient numbers of trained and skilled staff working at the service.

Medicines were safely managed and people were protected from the risk of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 June 2018

The service was effective.

People�s consent was sought before staff provided care and support and the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being followed by the provider.

People were cared for by staff that received the training and support they required to carry out their roles.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet.

People's health and well-being was continuously monitored.

People�s needs were met by the design and decoration of the premises.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 June 2018

The service was caring.

People were involved in planning and delivery of their care and support.

People�s privacy was respected.

People were supported by kind and compassionate staff who maintained people's dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People received care that met their needs and had plans of care that were updated as their needs changed.

People and their relatives had information on how to make complaints.

People would be supported to plan and make choices about their care at their end of life.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 14 June 2018

The service was not always well-led.

The provider had failed to make the required notifications to CQC for a number of safeguarding incidents at the service and incidents were not being effectively monitored to protect people.

There was a positive culture at the service which centred around the people who used the service.

Staff felt supported and staff performance was monitored on an on-going basis.

Audits were carried out in relation to medicines, care plans and the premises.