Beaumont Manor

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 62 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because the care planning system in place did not allow staff to use and update it easily with fully person-centred information. A staff member told us, “Care plans aren’t very good. If I was a new member of staff going in and given a tablet [to access the electronic care plan], they are out of date.” However, the consistent staff team knew people and their individual needs well, and information was shared at daily meetings to support regular reviews and re-assessments of people’s changing needs. A staff member told us, “Handovers are completed at each shift. I feel they are detailed, and I know how to report any concerns to the nurses or the seniors.”

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. We observed people had access to nutritious meals and a pleasant dining experience. We received some mixed feedback about meals, with comments relating to the size of portions and menu choices. A person’s relative said, “Food always looks great.” However, another relative said, “Food is the issue, it is not appetising, some leave the food.” A person told us, “I like the food but could sometimes eat more than what is on my plate.” We saw people had access to fruit bowls, fresh water and juices and snacks on offer at all times. A relative said, “[Beaumont Manor] has recently installed a coffee machine and guests can use it, and a proper cold-water machine installed too, both are good.”

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. We spoke to visiting professionals who spoke highly of the service stating staff were approachable, called for professionals in a timely manner and followed advice. A relative told us, “Yesterday [person] fell out of bed and the paramedics were called. The home is very respectful and kind, they are very good at letting me know what is going on.” A person said, “If I needed to see a GP, I know they (staff) would call one for me.”

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 involved in regularly monitoring their health, including assessments and checks with health and care professionals. A relative said, “[Person] has the paramedics, doctor every now and then, has seen the optician and the chiropodist comes monthly.” We also received positive feedback about how a person had been supported with the healing of a pressure ulcer which enabled them to have a better quality of life. The relative told us, “The tissue viability nurse said, ‘Wow’, it had cleared up so well, and it was down to this place Beaumont Manor, and now [person] is at the point where [they] can go in a wheelchair.”

The provider sought to ensure people’s outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. However, the provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. We identified some daily care notes could be more detailed to show what leisure activities people took part in, as well as a lack of consistently clear information on continence support and repositioning. The provider told us this would be addressed as they moved across to a new electronic care planning system. We saw evidence leaders tracked and monitored wider health metrics, such as themes and trends in people’s weights, and took action to address any unexpected weight loss, for example through offering fortified milkshakes made with ice cream.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Although we saw people were offered choice and control, we identified inconsistencies in mental capacity assessments (MCAs) and care plans for people without the capacity to consent to all aspects of their care and treatment. For example, 1 person had conflicting information about whether they had the capacity to make decisions about their own medicines, and another person had conflicting information about whether they could make the decision not to follow healthcare professional advice. The provider confirmed all care plans and associated documentation would be reviewed as they changed systems. There was oversight of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications and outcomes, as well as any conditions attached.