Beacon House

A registered manager was in post at the service. 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.

People received care which was extremely person centred and responsive to their needs. They were supported and fully engaged in activities that were meaningful to them.

Staff continuously looked for ways to improve care, so people had positive experiences and led fulfilling and meaningful lives. They liaised with professionals to make sure that people’s health care needs were met.

Social interaction and community acceptance was important and opportunities to access and integrate into the local community was regularly provided.

Staff had an excellent understanding of people's backgrounds and they supported people to pursue their interests and hobbies, try new things and learn new skills.

Peoples’ privacy was respected. Staff supported people to make individual choices. Staff had a common aim and purpose to achieve positive outcomes for people.

Staff were exceptional at helping people to express their views, so they could understand things from their point of view.

Procedures were in place which safeguarded people from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood the various types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to. The registered manager and staff knew of their responsibilities regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Risks to people were assessed and control measures put in place to mitigate risks to people’s safety This enabled people to maintain as much independence as possible. There were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure that people's needs were met.

Recruitment practices ensured that staff were of good character and suitable for their roles, and people were involved in interviewing new recruits.

People were supported to take their medicines safely, if required. Systems were in place to record when medicines were given.

Staff received an induction and on-going training to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge. Staff were well supported and had opportunities to discuss any concerns and training needs they might have.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

There were positive relationships between people and members of staff. Staff treated people with kindness and took the time to get to know them and their interests whilst providing their care. Staff involved people in producing their care plans to ensure that care was provided to them in the way they wanted it to be.

A robust quality assurance system was in place and the registered manager looked at ways they could continuously improve the service people received.

We considered our inspection findings to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

When we arrived at the service a member of staff checked our identity and we were asked to sign in the visitor's book. This meant that the appropriate actions were taken to ensure that the people who used the service were protected from others who did not have the right to access their home.

People told us they were happy living in the service and that they would speak with the staff if they had concerns. A relative told us, "The main thing is that I know that [person] is safe."

We found that appropriate arrangements were in place to ensure that people who used the service were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. People had their medicines at the times they needed them, and in a safe way.

We saw that the staff were provided with training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse. Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS.) This meant that staff were provided with the information that they needed to ensure that people were safeguarded.

We saw records which showed that the health and safety in the service was regularly checked. This included regular fire safety checks which meant that people were protected in the event of a fire.

Is the service effective?

People were provided with a service that met their needs. People made comments such as, "I love it here," and, "The staff and [the manager] are great."

People's care was supported through good assessments, care plans and risk assessments being in place. This ensured that staff understood people's needs and could care for them safely, effectively and consistently.

Staff who worked at the service were supported through on-going training and supervision to offer people care and support that meet their needs.

Is the service caring?

We saw that staff interacted with people living in the service in a caring, respectful and professional manner. Staff demonstrated an affection, warmth and compassion for the people they supported.

Since the service opened only two people had moved in. This was because the service took time to assess people's needs and compatibilities and would not compromise on the time and care people needed to transition into their new home.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that staff consulted with people and offered them choices in their daily lives. People's choices were taken in to account and listened to.

We saw that staff were responsive to people's changing wishes and needs about where they went and what they did and supported them well.

People's care records showed that where concerns about their well-being had been identified the staff had taken appropriate action to ensure that people were provided with the support they needed. This included seeking support and guidance from other health care professionals.

Is the service well-led?

We found that there were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. The staffing structures at the service ensured that there was consistency and good leadership.