The Beaufort Care Home

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 were effective.

Some care plans did not provide staff with sufficient guidance to support people safely and effectively. For example, where people required hoist transfers, care plans did not always specify the sling loop configuration or setting required. This increased the risk of equipment being used incorrectly and people experiencing unsafe transfers.

People's needs were assessed before they moved into the service and this information was used to develop care plans. However, we found care plans did not always contain all the information identified during assessments.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider used recognised tools to assess and identify risks to providing people’s care and support, including to assess the risk of skin damage and malnutrition.

Professional feedback was positive regarding staff knowledge and partnership working. One health care professional told us, “I have found that the nursing team recognise and respond to signs of clinical deterioration,” and “I have witnessed ongoing multidisciplinary teamwork to support residents with complex physical, psychological, and social care needs with appropriate referrals and interventions being implemented when required.”

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.

Staff worked closely with various healthcare partners to ensure people’s healthcare needs were met. Throughout the inspection we observed healthcare partners visiting people at the home. Leaders had developed a positive relationship with the doctor’s surgery as a result a GP visited people in their home when needed, avoiding trips to the surgery that some people could find distressing.

Health professionals shared positive feedback about communication from the team. One healthcare professional told us, “I have found communication to be timely, professional, and informative.”

Staff worked well together, a handover at every shift change ensured incoming staff were aware of any issues. One staff member told us, “Staff will always help each other out.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

We identified shortfalls in the monitoring and recording of key aspects of people's care. Staff did not always maintain accurate records of people's nutritional intake and did not consistently document episodes of distressed behaviour. This meant the provider could not be assured people's health and wellbeing were being effectively monitored. Incomplete nutritional records increased the risk that changes in people's eating and drinking habits may not be identified promptly, while incomplete records of distressed behaviour reduced opportunities to understand potential triggers and put appropriate support in place. As a result, people may not always have received timely interventions to support them to maintain their health and wellbeing.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Records did not consistently demonstrate that goals and outcomes had been identified, reviewed or evaluated and we could find records to show how people were supported to experience new activities which may enhance their lives. We also found information identified in one person's initial assessment about what helped them feel better was not reflected in their care plan.

Despite this, the provider worked well with healthcare professionals to support people’s physical health needs.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

People’s capacity had been considered, and mental capacity assessments were completed. However, capacity assessments reviewed on inspection, contained little to no detail about how individuals were supported to understand the decision in question and communicate their wishes, views and preferences about that decision. They also lacked sufficient evidence to show how assessors had determined that a person was unable to make the decision for themselves. This increased the risk of decisions being made on behalf of people when they may have been able to make the decision themselves with appropriate support, or without their wishes and preferences being fully understood and considered.

Staff understood the importance of supporting people to make their own decisions. However, we were not assured this was consistently put into practice, as people were not always given the information or opportunities they needed to make informed choices. For example, people were not always told about available activities or offered choices about having a shower.