You are here

Archived: Beechcroft Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 2 July 2015

During a routine inspection

Beechcroft Care Home provides personal and nursing care and accommodation for up to 26 people. The service is arranged on two floors with a lift for access. People have use of a garden.

The last inspection of Beechcroft Care Home took place on 1 August 2014. The service met all the standards we inspected at that time. This unannounced inspection took place on 2 July 2015. At the time of this inspection 22 people were using the service.

The service has a registered manager who has been in post since 2013. 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.

People, their relatives and healthcare professionals told us the service was safe. Staff knew how to identify the different kinds of abuse that could happen in the service. They understood their responsibility to report any concerns and take action to protect people from harm. Staff had identified individual risks to people and followed clear guidance about how to support them safely. The registered manager made sure there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s care and support needs. Staff supported people to receive their medicines safely as prescribed.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. People were supported by regular staff who knew them well. People’s needs were thoroughly assessed and their support was reviewed regularly. People and their relatives were involved in planning people’s care and support.

People received care which took into account their choices and preferences. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible. Staff ensured people, relatives and friends were made welcome at the service.

People told us staff listened to them and respected their privacy. Staff had complied with the law in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) when people lacked mental capacity.

Staff supported people to follow their individual hobbies and interests. People told us they felt confident in raising concerns and complaints with the registered manager. She had thoroughly investigated complaints and incidents.

People, staff and some professionals told us the registered manager led the service effectively. Staff said she made regular checks on the quality of the service and motivated them to improve people’s experience of the service.

Inspection carried out on 4 August 2014

During a routine inspection

The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

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.

Inspection carried out on 26 September 2013

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We found people using the service and/or their relatives were being consulted about their care. Some care plans had been signed by the person, indicating their involvement. We spoke with one visitor who said that they were very happy with the care their friend received. We spoke with several of the people using the service. They indicated that they were happy with the way they were cared for.

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.

Inspection carried out on 22, 24 May 2013

During a routine inspection

People using the service told us that they were treated with respect and dignity and that staff cared for them well. They said that they were involved in their care. One person told us "it is as good as can be expected. Staff are nice and they do a good job". One relative told us"I can't fault them. The staff are lovely, and the care is fine." Some of the relatives we spoke with, and others who had responded to questionnaires sent out by the provider, said that they would like to be involved and consulted more.

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.

Inspection carried out on 13 November 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us they were well cared for at Beechcroft Care Home. One person told us, "The staff are okay, they look after me." Another person told us, "I'm very happy about my home here." However, one person who was relatively new in the service had found it difficult to settle in. They told us, "It can be peculiar living somewhere like this when you've lived on your own. I don't like it, but they treat me well here."

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.