Beaufort View

Beaufort View is registered to accommodate up to eight people. At the time of our inspection there were eight people living in one adapted building in a residential area of Southbourne, Bournemouth.

We found the following examples of good practice.

Beaufort View had a clear, detailed procedure for entering the building. There was an area for putting on and taking off Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), taking temperatures and asking questions about health and wellbeing. There were hand washing facilities throughout the home including hand sanitisers and infection control stations on all floors which meant that staff had access to PPE when needed.

Cleaning schedules had been increased to include frequent touch points throughout the home such as door handles and switches. The home was clean and tidy, the communal areas had been reviewed to remove all non essential items to reduce the risk of infection. The home supported people to keep in touch with their loved ones by providing video calling and some ‘drive by’ visits to family using social distancing.

People and staff had their own individual risk assessments in place which detailed their health concerns and procedures were in place to reduce risks where possible. The home kept informed with information about how to keep people safe. Staff training in infection prevention and control was up to date and there had been additional training provided in how to use PPE safely. Staff worked well with people to ensure they were occupied and as active as they could be.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Beaufort View is registered to accommodate up to eight people. At the time of our inspection seven of the eight people living at the home had learning and or physical disabilities.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated Good

People were supported by staff who understood the risks they faced and how to support them to reduce these. Staff understood how to identify and report abuse and the service had responded appropriately to allegations of abuse. Staff supported people to take medicines safely.

There was a system in place to review and learn from incidents when things went wrong.

Staff received training to meet the individual needs of people. Staff told us they felt well supported to carry out their roles and told us everyone worked very well together as a team for the benefit of the people living at Beaufort View.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and their wishes and preferences were planned for and met.

People's independence and wellbeing was enhanced by the environment of the home.

There was an open, friendly and homely atmosphere. People and staff were relaxed and comfortable with each other. People were supported with kindness and compassion by staff who knew them and understood the care they needed.

People were treated with dignity and respect and were supported to make their own choices.

People received outstanding personalised care and support in the ways they preferred. Staff took the time to get to know people and them so they could truly understand their experiences. People’s needs and preferences were consistently assessed or planned for and met.

The responsive care and support people received had an extremely positive impact on their lives. There was an emphasis on personalised, meaningful activity that was based on people’s interests and experiences. People took part in activities both at home and in the local community.

People and relatives knew how to raise concerns and complaints.

The service was well led by a management team that was approachable and respected by the people, relatives, professionals and staff. There were quality assurance systems in place to drive improvement and ensure the home offered a safe, effective, caring and responsive service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Beaufort View had a registered manager. 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 were protected from harm. Staff understood about safeguarding adults and knew what action to take if they were concerned about someone. Robust recruitment ensured staff employed were suitable to work with vulnerable people and medicines were managed safely.

Staff told us they were well supported by the management team and people said that staff had the right skills and knowledge to support them. People’s consent was sought and staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act. People were supported to maintain their physical and mental health and well-being because staff helped them promptly when they needed to see a GP or other health or social care professional.

People told us staff were very kind and caring. One person told us, “I am happy here and everything is happy for me”. A staff member said, “It’s a home from home”.

People’s needs were assessed and planned for and support was delivered in accordance with people’s plans. People told us that staff responded quickly to their requests for help or support.

Staff sought feedback from people about their experiences to improve the quality of care provided at Beaufort View. Feedback was obtained through a variety of methods because some people did not communicate verbally. There were checks in place to ensure the service people received was safe, effective, caring and responsive.

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Both people we pathway tracked had up-to-date risk assessments in place. The identified risks were addressed in people's care plans, which contained guidance on how to manage risks safely. The provider may find it useful to note that staff checked that bedrails were in a good condition and safe to use but did not always document these checks.

People using the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it from happening. We saw that staff spoke with people respectfully and that people looked relaxed with staff. A relative told us their family member was always happy to return to Beaufort View after spending time with them. Staff recognised their responsibility to safeguard vulnerable adults. They received training about safeguarding vulnerable adults when they started working at the home and this was updated periodically.

People using the service were protected against the risk of unlawful or excessive control or restraint because the provider had made suitable arrangements. Staff complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 whenever they used restraint, to ensure this was in the person's best interest and was the least restrictive measure possible.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS), which apply to care homes. We discussed with the registered manager how the recent Supreme Court judgement about DOLS affected people living at the home. They had just learned of the judgement and confirmed that all of the people living at the home required supervision because of their vulnerability whenever they were out. This indicated that DOLS may be required for everyone living at the home. The registered manager confirmed following the inspection that they had made DOLS applications for each individual and would notify us of the outcome of these, as the law requires. They informed us they thought that one individual, whom we pathway-tracked, had previously been subject to DOLS, although they were unable to find DOLS documentation within the person's care records. They confirmed they had applied for a DOLS authorisation for this individual. This showed that the registered manager was taking action to ensure the home met legal requirements relating to DOLS.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs safely.

Is the service effective?

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their placement plans. We spoke with two relatives, who expressed positive views about their family member's care. For example, they said that when they visited, people living at the home generally looked happy. The care plans we saw were clear and straightforward for staff to follow and staff were familiar with people's care plans and their particular needs. We observed that staff followed people's care plans and relevant records showed people received support in line with their care plans.

The registered manager explained that they organised the rota according to people's needs on particular days.

Is the service caring?

Two relatives told us they found the home 'very friendly' and 'welcoming' whenever they visited. Throughout our visit we observed that staff supported people in a relaxed and person-centred manner. We saw that they checked what people wanted and acted accordingly.

Is the service responsive?

During our visit the manager liaised with health and social care professionals to arrange an overnight stay for someone who was considering moving into the home. They confirmed that they and a member of the provider's management team had already met the person in hospital for a preliminary assessment of their needs. This showed that the home's management sought to ensure the home would be able to meet people's needs before they moved in.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and these were acted on. The home's management ensured they tried to seek people's views on their care. They also kept in contact with people's families, seeking their views and involving them in people's care. Two relatives told us they were 'very involved' in their family member's care. The management sought the views of staff and acted upon these.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others. Learning from incidents took place and appropriate changes were implemented. There was a system of regular quality assurance checks, which also helped the provider to identify and manage safety hazards.