You are here

Livability Beaumont Court Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 20 July 2018

This inspection took place 13 and 21 June 2018 and was announced. This was because the service is a small service and we needed to be sure someone was in to help us carry out our inspection.

This was the first comprehensive inspection of the service since it had been acquired by the provider Livability.

Livability Beaumont Court provides care and support to people living in supported living, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

The service is close to the centre of Prudhoe and had been divided into two houses separated by a central staff area used as an office and staff sleeping room. Each house could accommodate four people. At the time of our inspection seven people were using the service. One person had been identified to move into the vacancy and they were in the process of introductions to the service.

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

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Staff had been trained and assessed as competent to administer people’s medicines. The service had signed up to a national initiative called STOMP-LD (Stopping over-medication of people with learning disabilities).

There were enough staff on duty to support people needs. Staff underwent a robust recruitment process. Once in post they were supported using an induction process, training, supervision and appraisal. Agency staff who were employed in the service also underwent an induction.

Staff understood the personal risks to each person who used the service including living at Beaumont Court and accessing the community. These risks included information from other professionals to keep people safe.

House meetings were arranged by staff to engage people in the service. People had monthly meetings with their keyworkers using a pictorial format to review their needs and their satisfaction with the service.

Records showed staff supported people’s tenancies and attended to repairs and redecoration of their homes.

People’s human rights were protected by staff who promoted their right to family life and access to medical service to promote their health and well-being. Staff enabled people to access their community. They encouraged and supported people to continue relationships and activities that were important to them.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding and felt able to discuss any concerns with the registered manager.

The provider had a staff disciplinary policy in place to address any staff behaviour which was not acceptable.

People had their own menu’s in place which reflected their personal tastes. Pictures were available for people to choose their menu the week before they assisted with shopping.

The service had engaged professionals from different disciplines to support people’s needs and included their advice in people’s care plans.

Staff supported people with kindness and patience. They respected people’s choices and encouraged them to be as independent as possible. When people had made choices, which were important to them staff had advocated on their behalf to their family members about what each person wanted to do.

Records in the home were up to d

Inspection areas



Updated 20 July 2018

The service was safe.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people�s needs and support them in their activities.

Staff underwent a thorough recruitment process to ensure they were suitable to work with people with additional learning needs.

Staff had been trained in medicines administration and assessed as competent to do so.



Updated 20 July 2018

The service was effective.

People chose the meals they liked to eat and were supported by staff to do a weekly shop.

Staff were provided with support through induction, training, supervision to carry out their duties.

Professionals told us staff in the service communicated well with them about people�s needs.



Updated 20 July 2018

The service was caring.

Relatives spoke positively about staff. They complimented the staff on their kindness and patience.

People were supported to be as independent as possible.

Staff could describe people�s preferences to us and tell us about what people liked to do.



Updated 20 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People engaged with their keyworker each month to monitor if their needs were being met.

Care plans with associated risk assessments were personalised, accurate and up to date.

There had been no complaints made about the service.



Updated 20 July 2018

The service was well-led.

The provider had effective processes in place to monitor the quality of the service. Actions plans were designed and reviewed.

Staff enabled people to access their local community and participate in the local events.

During the inspection staff displayed the values of the organisation.