The Beeches

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe - this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which staff followed. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act and how it was applied to people. We saw evidence of mental capacity assessments being completed where appropriate. People who had capacity assessments in place had care plans to reflect the decisions made around mental capacity, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) including information about Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). We saw evidence of capacity being appropriately assessed and in line with people’s best interest. For example, any restrictions placed on people such as bed rails, were clearly documented and had care plans to reflect the decisions. We also saw evidence of family involvement in these decisions.

Staff were able to identify safeguarding concerns and felt confident in raising concerns. Staff told us they would escalate concerns to the registered manager, who was also the safeguarding lead. Staff completed mandatory training in safeguarding.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments covered key areas of care and reflected people’s care needs, including when risk increased. Care records showed staff worked with external professionals and liaised with them about people’s care.

Care plans reflected the voice of people, for example we saw records which identified people’s’ individual needs and how they wanted to be supported. Input from relatives was evident in care plans and there was clear family involvement.

Staff were able to explain risks associated with each person and they understood individual risks in relation to choking, malnutrition, falls and manual handling.

Staff were part of daily huddles which included discussion of any new or emerging risk related to people or the environment.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staffing levels were maintained through a staffing rota which demonstrated a stable care team.

The provider followed safe recruitment of staffing through completing necessary pre-employment checks prior to staff working with the provider. Each new staff member received a comprehensive induction, and staff were provided with shadowing opportunities. A staff member told us, “I had a good induction. It was robust, I did 2 weeks training and shadowing before my actual shifts started.” Staff were provided with monthly supervision and yearly appraisals. Managers used these meetings to discuss the role, any concerns with residents, any outstanding competencies, feedback and training.

People and staff told us they felt there were enough staff in the home. Comments included, “So lovely every one of them” [staff] and “Staff are very good; the staff understand me and my needs.”

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.