Beechwood

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 64 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Overall people and relatives were happy with the care provided. However, there was a lack of consistency in people’s care plans. Some were detailed and person-centred, however others were not always accurate, up to date or fully reflective of the person’s needs. People and/or relatives were not always involved in care planning or reviews.

Staff said communication was generally good. Handovers were given at each shift change providing information on any changes or updates in people’s needs.

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.

Staff worked with other healthcare professionals and external agencies in a collaborative way to ensure care was well co-ordinated. People’s care records showed staff supported people in accessing specialist support.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Improvements were required to ensure information is consistently available in accessible formats. While some details were displayed in an easy-read format on the activities board, this was limited. Communication cards were provided for one person, but we did not observe staff using them. People with a learning disability did not have access to their support plans in an accessible format.

Signage within the service was also insufficient to support safe and independent orientation. Although temporary paper signs had been placed in a corridor to indicate the location of a toilet, doors were all painted the same colour and lacked clear signage, making it difficult for people to identify their rooms.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Minutes showed resident and family meetings were held regularly to give people and relatives an opportunity to provide feedback and share suggestions. However, some relatives we spoke with were not aware of these meetings.

Surveys were sent to people and relatives providing opportunities for feedback. The results were analysed and actions identified for any issues raised.

There was a system in place to respond to any concerns and complaints. People and relatives knew who to report any concerns to and felt confident they would be dealt with appropriately. Records showed actions taken in response to complaints received.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service was accessible to people with lift access to the first floor. People were supported to make full use of all areas of the service, including different communal areas and the garden.

People had access to staff support 24 hours a day through the use of call bells in their bedrooms and other areas of the home. Additionally, sensor mats were in place where appropriate to alert staff when people needed assistance, particularly at night. We observed staff responding promptly to these alerts, helping to maintain people’s safety and dignity.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Staff had completed training in equality, diversity, and human rights. However, we found that care was not always inclusive or respectful of people’s individual identities and protected characteristics. For example, one person’s care plan did not acknowledge or reflect their chosen identity, indicating a lack of commitment to delivering sensitive, person-centred care that upholds rights and choices. This was addressed immediately when raised with the provider, and additional gender identity training was delivered to all staff during our assessment.

People, relatives, and staff we spoke with reported they had not experienced or witnessed discrimination within the service. Everyone described the service’s culture as open, welcoming, and inclusive.

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.

At the time of the assessment, no one was receiving end-of-life care or nearing the end of life. However, care plans for end-of-life care were available and included people’s needs and preferences.