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 we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We found people were only supported to have a shower approximately once a month, which meant their personal care needs and preferences were not always being met in a person-centred way.

Care plans did not always contain detailed information about people's individual support needs, preferences or how they wished to receive their care. This meant staff did not have clear guidance to help them provide care that was tailored to each person.

People were also at risk of social isolation. One relative told us their loved one spent much of their time sitting in front of the television with limited opportunities for meaningful engagement. They felt their family member was often isolated and did not receive enough stimulation or interaction throughout the day. People were not routinely asked about their interests or what activities they would like to take part in.

These issues meant the provider could not demonstrate that people consistently received care and support that reflected their individual needs, preferences, and wellbeing. As a result, there was a risk that people would not always receive personalised care that was based on accurate, up-to-date information.

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.

Relatives told us that staff kept them informed about changes in people’s health and families felt reassured and supported. One relative told us, “The communication has been very good, they keep me up to date and it gives me peace of mind that [person] is being looked after.”

People were supported by staff who had often known them for many years and understood their health and support needs. This helped to maintain continuity of care when people's needs changed.

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

Information was displayed throughout the home about how to raise a complaint, safeguarding procedures and the availability of services within the home. A service user guide was also available to people. However, we did not see evidence that information was provided in alternative formats to meet people's communication needs.

The registered manager told us information could be adapted and provided in different formats where required. However, this was not always reflected in practice. For example, we did not see pictorial menus available to support people who may benefit from visual aids to make informed choices about their meals. This meant people were not always supported to access information in a way that met their individual needs and preferences.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People had opportunities to share their views and contribute to the development of the service. The provider sought feedback from people through questionnaires, which gave people an opportunity to comment on their experiences of care and support.

The service also held regular resident meetings where people could discuss issues that were important to them and raise suggestions about how the service could improve.

In addition, the provider had a suggestion box in the reception area, which people, relatives and visitors could use to provide feedback.

However, we could not be assured these arrangements were always effective, as people's experiences of care were not consistently positive and feedback indicated some people did not always receive the quality of care and support they expected.

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

People had access to healthcare services and support when they needed it. Records showed people received regular health checks to help maintain their health and wellbeing.

People could access different areas of the home, which was located over two floors, via 1 of the 2 lifts. However, 1 lift was frequently out of service, and the remaining lift was small and could not accommodate a bed. This created a risk that people's access to different areas of the home could be restricted and could make it more difficult to move people safely around the service when needed. The registered manager explained people could be transferred to a wheelchair and supported downstairs in the working lift. People who were unable to be transferred from their bed were generally in downstairs rooms. The registered manager arranged repairs when faults occurred and told us they worked with lift maintenance contractors to restore the lift to service as quickly as possible. However, the recurring breakdowns meant the risk remained ongoing.

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.

People did not always have equitable experiences because the service did not consistently provide meaningful alternatives for those who chose not to leave their rooms or take part in organised activities. As a result, some people had fewer opportunities for engagement, social interaction and stimulation.

People who remained in their rooms were not always offered alternative activities that reflected their interests, preferences or abilities. This meant they did not have the same opportunities to access meaningful occupation as people who took part in group activities.

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.

People's wishes and preferences for their future care were discussed and recorded. Records showed staff had spoken with people about their wishes at the end of their life, helping to ensure their preferences could be understood and respected.

Staff had received end of life care training to help them provide compassionate and responsive support to people approaching the end of their lives. This helped ensure staff had the right knowledge and skills to support people in accordance with their wishes, preferences, and assessed needs.