The Beaufort Care Home

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 of this key question, it was rated as requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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.

Most people told us they were not aware of a ‘care plan’ or what information it contained. Comments people gave us were, “I don’t remember any reviews”, “No reviews that I can remember but I am involved with my care, they ask me if everything is alright and if I’m happy.” A relative said, “I haven’t seen a care plan. The transfer from hospital was a bit hurried. The information from one to the other evolved gradually.”People where confident staff knew them and their routines, despite occasions when staff were delayed. People’s care plans remained a work in progress. The manager and regional manager explained the introduction of a new computer system had meant some care information had gone onto the system that required updating and limited training and confidence in using the electronic system meant there were challenges in getting people’s information updated. We found some care plans were detailed and provided the right level of information whilst others, lacked some clinical information and guidance to staff. Staff knew people’s preferences and built trust and confidence with them and people told us they felt confident with staff. One staff member explained how important it was for some people to be cared for by a staff member of the same gender. Staff knew how people liked their care to be provided and responded accordingly. This included assisting people, so their safety needs and risks could be managed. Staff had considered peoples likes and dislikes. One person liked listening to Christian music, staff told us they ensured this was played via the person’s Alexa (cloud based assistant device). One staff member shared, “[Person] likes Christian music, but I play it on their Alexa. I know [Person] likes iced tea so once I bought a different flavour, raspberry and mango which they really liked.” Whilst staff told us they provided person centred care, 1 person told us they were woken up at 6am to take their medication and were not given their personal care at their preffered time.

​​​​​​​

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.

One staff member told us the nursing staff would mainly liaise with health professionals and if there were any updates or changes, those changes were communicated with care staff. However, care staff supported with sharing information around specific people where needed. One care staff member told us they had updated physiotherapists for 1 person living at The Beaufort. The staff member told us, “[Person] had physio, and I said to the physio that [Person] was very optimistic and had been doing exercises and will carry on doing those exercises when home.” The manager told us they were applying for Funded Nursing Care [FNC] for 1 person receiving support as their care needs had changed. This would help ensure the person’s changing needs were met. People told us they were supported to obtain help from other health and social care professionals and referred to specialist health teams where appropriate.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We observed people were wearing their glasses where required and staff communicated with people based on their individual communication needs. Staff explained they supported 1 person whose first language was not English by using gestures and cards, and the person would then communicate back by nodding. Staff also told us when they supported people to eat and drink, they did this at the person’s preferred pace. Where information was written, we were told this could be adapted if required to personal needs. People’s individual care records were not always up to date and accurate, for example some care plans and some people’s monitoring records. If these records were shared with people, they may not provide a true and reflective picture of the level of care provided. The manager and deputy manager had plans to address this.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.We received mixed feedback from people about how involved they felt in how the service was run and the care they received. Six out of 9 people and relatives we spoke with said they did not feel involved. One comment was, “Never heard of residents’ meetings. No involvement as yet.” Another person said, “There are residents’ meetings; they are poorly attended. It was 4 weeks ago, it was a waste of time” and another person said, “There was a residents meeting, but it was very noisy and I left quickly. I have never been asked about anything to do with the home.” For others, they felt involved and listened to, such as with aspects of their care or what they wanted to do.

The manager said they had plans to continue with meetings and engaging people where possible. Staff said if anyone raised a suggestion or concern, they would act. One staff member told us “Any concerns we will make sure we listen to them and then discuss it. I would tell nurse and make them aware of concerns, then take it to the home care manager and discuss it in handover.” Following our visit, the provider sent us information to show how people's feedback was captured. This included, monthly provider audits which include direct engagement with 3 to 5 people to gather people's experience and identify any areas for improvement, as well as seeking people's feedback during 'resident of the day'.In a reception area, a "You Said, We Did” board was displayed to demonstrate how people and relative's feedback has led to any changes within the home.

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

Healthcare professionals had regular ‘rounds’ at the home which meant people were able to access care, treatment and support when they needed to. We received positive feedback from health professionals. Comments included, “I have been made to feel very welcome. Staff have consistently introduced themselves and demonstrated a friendly and approachable manner, particularly [Manager and deputy manager’s names].” Another comment was, “To date I have been impressed by the professionalism, communication, and dedication of the staff at Beaufort Care Home.” Staff told us they knew people well. This meant they could recognise when people who were not able to verbally report discomfort or feeling unwell needed to be referred to external healthcare professionals.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

There was evidence in care records of staff escalating concerns and “advocating” for people by making referrals to other health professionals. Positive feedback from health professionals confirmed this took place which meant people had the best possible outcomes for their health and wellbeing. Managers and staff engaged with people and their relatives to understand their views and ensure their preferred outcomes were known. Staff had an understanding around discrimination and inequalities people may face when accessing services or in the local community. One staff member said how they looked for inequality which included, “Not restricting them (people) from their rights - like I mean they have a right in whatever they request.”

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 our visit, no one was receiving end of life care. However, during our visit we observed a funeral car came to the home and staff went to pay their respects. Family members had arranged with management, to start the funeral procession from the home where their family member had lived. This was respected and supported by the management and staff team with dignity and respect. Where people had received end of life care, appropriate support from external health professionals and anticipatory medicines would be planned and managed.