Beaumont Manor

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Whilst person-centred care was being delivered, this still needed to be translated into records, which the provider was aware of. Leaders told us there were plans for people to have a dedicated staff key worker going forwards, to ensure everything was in order. Some relatives told us they felt activity provision needed more input from people. However, other feedback stated people were enabled to access leisure activities of interest to them, and this information was shared with people in advance. A relative told us, “[Beaumont Manor] has got a great activity coordinator, we receive a plan of what’s on a week ahead, exercises, games, lots of entertainers in. We go to some events; they go down great. [Person] likes it when the animals come in.” An external activities provider told us, “[Staff] ensure residents are given the best opportunity to join in, supporting them with doing so. Staff within the home are wonderful and you can see how much they care about the residents. It is a lovely care setting to visit.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Leaders told us relatives and volunteers regularly attended to support events which took place in an integrated way, with plans to enhance this approach further. For example, the deputy manager said, “We are going to be hosting a community dementia café and a chance for our dementia community to be a part of that.” We also received positive feedback about a co-ordinated and responsive approach by staff to supporting people to access activities such as gentle seated exercise, including on a one-to-one basis. A professional said, “The staff are very attentive and helpful throughout the session, taking on the needs of each resident throughout.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. If people required support with glasses or hearing aids, this was clearly recorded in their care plan, as well as any choices around this. For example, we saw 1 person’s care plan recorded they did not wish to wear their hearing aids, reminding staff instead to face the person at all times when speaking with them to aid lip reading. We saw information was provided in an accessible way, including pictorial menus, taking account of people’s communication needs and preferences.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. We saw complaints were investigated and action taken to share learning as a result. The service had also received numerous compliments and positive reviews. For example, 1 relative wrote, ‘I just want to say how thankful and blessed my [person] and I have been to have such wonderful loving and caring [staff] take care of [person].’

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, although there were areas of interest to support people living with dementia on the upstairs floor, the service actively worked to include everyone in shared spaces so there was no divide. A relative said, “[Person] is on the dementia floor but goes downstairs and [staff] take [person] a lot, they take [person] when [person] wants to go and back when [person] is ready. [Person] seems happy there.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Leaders told us an organisational value was inclusion, and we saw evidence they had proactively considered events to enhance people’s awareness in relation to protected characteristics. For example, at the time of our assessment there was a LGBTQ+ Pride parade planned. The deputy manager told us this would involve, “Face painting, pride flags, rainbow cakes, talks, something fun and educational.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Although care plans required more detail to show people’s holistic wishes, we received very positive feedback about how staff cared for people and gave emotional support to their loved ones in practice. A person’s relative told us, “The staff are absolutely marvellous. After being there 2 weeks [person] was very poorly. Staff gave me food, called the doctor in, gave me teas, gave me a room next door so I was able to stay, gave me breakfast, lunch and dinner and [person] came through that.” Another relative told us, “The care staff really care about the residents. I was in the central area and staff were lined up waiting for a resident who had died, they were crying because they had lost a resident.” Records clearly recorded if people had chosen not to be resuscitated if very unwell (DNACPR orders) so staff could respect their wishes.