Beechwood

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 was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, well-being and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed prior to admission to the service. Pre-admission assessments were detailed, clearly outlining people’s needs, preferences and any specialist equipment required. One staff member said, “When a new resident arrives, we have a meeting beforehand to get the information about them and what their needs will be.”

There was mixed feedback from people and relatives about their involvement in care planning and reviews. Comments included, “I feel in control of my care plans. Some staff involve me when they’re writing my daily records, but others take the folder out of my room to write them” and “I’ve not been involved in my care plan and haven’t read it. I would like to see it.” Relatives we spoke with said they had not been involved in planning their family member’s care.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Not all people, or their relatives, were involved in planning or reviewing their care. Recognised clinical assessment tools such as MUST and Waterlow were in place to monitor people’s needs. Where people had specific health care needs, their care records included fact sheets which give detailed information about their medical condition.

People gave mixed feedback about the food and drink provided. Some said the quality of food and choice varied according to which cook was on. Comments included, “Food is good when [name of cook] is on. They ask us about the food and are brilliant. There’s not always a choice with the other cook and they don’t ask us about the food” and “Food here is boring. Do we get a choice? Yes, take it or leave it.” Others said they enjoyed the food and felt their dietary needs were met. One person said the kitchen staff worked really hard to ensure they got the specialist diet they needed.

We observed people were offered a choice and staff supported those who needed assistance with their food and drink.

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.

Records showed staff worked well with other health professionals, making referrals and consulting with them appropriately. We did not receive any negative feedback regarding the effectiveness of teamwork with external services.

Hospital passports were in place for people with autism or learning disabilities. These provided up to date information about the person’s current health, care, well-being, and communication needs.

The provider supported people to manage their health and well-being 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.

Most people, and their relatives, said staff supported them to access health care support. Two people told us they used to have access to physiotherapy which they felt helped them. However, they said this was no longer available to them.

The GP visited the service weekly and as and when required. Care records showed input from other health care professionals including the speech and language therapy team (SALT), dietician, physiotherapist, tissue viability nurse and optician. However, there was no evidence in one person’s care records to show that specialist advice had been discussed or sought to help them with their condition.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were monitored for effectiveness.

Care plans and clinical monitoring tools were not always regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected people’s current needs. People were not always involved in discussions about their care and treatment or had opportunities to contribute to the planning and review of their support. Where required, referrals were made to other healthcare professionals to help ensure people received appropriate and timely care.However, further work was needed to ensure staff had access to all of the specific guidance necessary to provide consistently safe care.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

We observed people were asked for their consent before support was provided.

Care records we reviewed showed the majority of people who lacked capacity, had capacity assessments and best interest decisions in place.