Beechfields Nursing Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment and medicine management. Although some improvements had been found, the service remained in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 59 (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 had improved their process to encourage and employ a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. However, further improvements were needed to ensure all concerns were reported externally to continually embed good practice.

When things had gone wrong, the registered manager shared learning with staff to try and prevent recurrence. A staff member told us, “If there is an incident it is communicated to staff. For example, we have one person who is high risk of falling so we have had to adapt how we support the person, and the person’s risk assessment has been changed.”

The management team worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People had access to services as needed and knew who to speak with to ensure their needs and wishes were understood. The management team had improved processes to ensure they worked together with people and staff to ensure people’s care was assessed, planned and delivered in an effective and consistent way.

The registered manager was not always consistent in ensuring safeguarding referrals had been followed through and reported to the local authority where necessary.

However, there had been an improvement since the last inspection and internal actions had been taken when concerns were raised. The registered manager was in the process of working with the local authority for further support and advice to ensure processes were understood, followed and remained consistent.

People we spoke with confirmed, they felt safe and had no concerns.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks.

People told us their risks were well managed. One person said, “I had a safe transition into the care home, and I feel safe and secure.” The person’s relative told us, “We know [relative] is safe and well looked after and staff know their needs well.”

Since the last inspection, the management team had taken a pro-active approach to ensure people’s risks were managed safely and records were up to date to enable staff to have clear guidance about how best to support people. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

There were mechanisms in place to promote the safety of the environment. For example, there were signs which alerted people to fire exits and signs informing people areas had been cleanedto mitigate the risk of an accident occurring. Staff completed relevant records to maintain the safety of the environment.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People said there were enough staff to meet their needs and told us they were able to receive support in a timely way. One person said, “The staff are regular staff and very friendly, they know the residents and their families.”

Staff told us they felt there were enough staff to support people safely and effectively, however some staff stated they felt they could use extra support at busier times of the day. The registered manager used a dependency tool which ensured there was an appropriate staff to people ratio.

During our inspection we did not observe people waiting to receive care and support.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Whilst the systems in place were much improved, there were still elements of medicine management which were not being completed. For example, the temperatures of both the medication room, and the refrigerators in which medicines were kept were not consistently recorded. This meant there were no means of ascertaining whether medicines were stored at optimal temperatures and could have impacted the effectiveness of the medication.