Archived: Beechcroft Care Home

Our inspection team was made up of one inspector. At the time of our inspection there were 22 people residing at the home. As part of this inspection we spoke with three people who used the service, one relative, the registered manager and three care staff. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the home which included four care plans and four staff files.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

There were detailed care plans for each person who used the service. One care plan had been reviewed recently. There was a nurse on duty at all times to deal with emergencies. Staff had emergency first aid training.

Is the service effective?

The service undertook assessments with the person who used the service or a relative to identify their support needs. People who used the service had signed their care plans by way of giving consent to care, treatment and support.

Is the service caring?

People who used the service or a relative had been involved in decisions about their care and support. Staff supported people and advised them, but allowed the person who used the service to make the final decision. Staff told us, "We always ask [people who used the service] what they would like." A person who used the service told us, 'They are like family.' We observed staff knocking on bedroom and bathroom doors before they entered to give privacy and protect the dignity of people who used the service.

Is the service responsive?

The service liaised with other health professionals to meet the needs of people who used the service. People's individual needs had been assessed and staff were aware of their needs. People who used the service knew how to make a complaint; however the people we spoke with told us they had not made any.

Is the service well-led?

The service was using the skills and knowledge of staff members to provide the required service to meet people's needs. Staff meetings were being held regularly and the staff we spoke with confirmed they felt able to make suggestions and voice concerns. There were processes to monitor and improve the quality of service delivery such as the annual service user questionnaire.

We saw that there had been an improvement in both care planning and the care being given. However we found that there was still some improvement needed to ensure that staff were following the plans of care; and recording the care that had been given.

We found that a number of the bedrooms, the communal areas and the corridors had been redecorated and refurbished.

The service had an activities coordinator in post, however we found that resources and the variety of activities were limited, and people who chose to spend their time in their room rarely had the opportunity to be involved.

We found people had their needs assessed, and care plans and risk assessments were in place. These were regularly updated however staff did not always carry out care in accordance with the care plans.

Parts of the building were being refurbished, and some necessary areas of repair that were noted at the last inspection had not yet been rectified, although they were on the provider's ongoing plan to be actioned.

There were appropriate recruitment arrangements in place, and staff with suitable knowledge and experience were employed in the service. Staff and people using the service felt there were enough staff available.

The provider had satisfactory systems in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided.

Family members and some people felt involved in decisions about the care of their loved one, and felt able to participate in 'residents' meetings.

The provider sought people's views, carried out audits and completed assessments of risks to assess and monitor the quality of service provision.

We found through our observations in both lounge areas in the home that people were mostly left with no staff presence in these areas watching television, dozing, asleep or passively looking around them for extended periods of time. These and other observations suggested that there were insufficient staff in the service.

We found that the premises had not been adequately maintained.