Beech Haven

Beech Haven is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 29 people. The service provides support to older adults who may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 26 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We identified some improvements were needed to be made in respect of recruitment checks. The provider immediately addressed this. At times, staffing levels could be compromised, but the provider and registered manager did all they could to mitigate the risks from this. We saw on the day of the inspection, there were enough staff to support people and meet their needs. Staff were provided training to help them meet people's needs. Staff were well supported and encouraged to learn and improve in their role and to put people's needs and wishes at the heart of everything they did.

People were safe at the service. Staff knew how to safeguard people from abuse and keep them safe from identified risks to their safety and wellbeing. The service was clean and hygienic, and staff followed current infection control and hygiene practices to reduce the risk of infection. The provider carried out health and safety checks of the premises and equipment to make sure these were safe. Medicines were managed safely. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed.

The service was managed well by an experienced registered manager. They understood how people's needs should be met and had oversight of the service. There were audits and checks at regular intervals, to monitor, review and improve the quality and safety of the service. There were systems in place to investigate accidents and incidents.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service worked with healthcare professionals involved in people's care and acted on their recommendations to deliver care and support that met people's needs.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 10 September 2019).

Why we inspected

We received concerns in relation to staffing levels and recruitment processes. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

We found minor concerns in relation to recruitment and the provider immediately acted to address this and avoid any future occurences. We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Please see the Safe and Well Led sections of this full report.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Beech Haven Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Beech Haven is a care home providing personal and nursing care for people aged 65 and over. It accommodates up to 29 people some of whom may be living with dementia. There were 24 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People continued to remain safe at the home. There were appropriate measures to manage any risks identified to people and their well-being. People received their prescribed medicines when needed and good infection control practices were followed. There were sufficient staffing to keep people safe.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported to maintain good nutrition and they had help with accessing external healthcare services to ensure they received right treatment. People benefitted from staff that were suitably trained, skilled and well supported.

People’s care plans were current and reflected people's personal preferred routines. Staff used information about people to deliver care that was responsive to people’s individual needs. People were offered to participate in activities to stimulate their social interaction. People knew how to complain and had confidence any issues raised with the staff would be responded to appropriately. Staff ensured people were supported to have a pain free and dignified death.

People complimented the staff and told us staff were compassionate and kind. Staff ensured people were treated with dignity and respect. People were supported to be independent and their confidentiality was respected. The team was committed to valuing people’s diversity and individual, cultural needs.

The service remained well-led by the long-standing registered manager and the regular team of staff. The provider used quality assurance processes to monitor the quality of the service. Where an area for improvement had been identified an action plan was put in place so it could be promptly addressed it. The management team worked well with a number of external local health and social professionals and promoted an open and transparent culture.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 30 March 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

At our last inspection in January 2016 we identified that where risks to people’s well-being were identified, management plans were not always in place to minimise the risk. That was a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection we saw the registered provider had made sufficient improvements and the regulation in question was not breached any longer. People’s care records contained risk assessments where risks had been identified. The risk assessments gave staff guidance on how to reduce the likelihood of people coming to harm and manage these risks.

People told us they felt safe. Staff knew what to do in an event of suspecting abuse. Staff received safeguarding training and they were confident the management would take appropriate action if needed. The registered manager ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe. The registered provider followed safe recruitment procedures to ensure only suitable staff were caring for people.

People received their medicine as prescribed and the medicines were kept securely and as per manufacturers’ guidance. People were supported to access health care services when required. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and people were supported to maintain appropriate nutrition and hydration.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. Staff and the registered manager understood the MCA and DoLS and the provider followed the legal requirements. People told us staff respected their decisions and wishes.

Staff were supported through regular supervision process. Staff had access to training and development opportunities that enabled them to carry out their roles effectively.

People received compassionate care from staff. People were cared for in a way that met their needs. People were involved as much as possible in their care and were asked for consent before staff began to support them. People’s dignity, privacy and confidentiality were respected.

People’s needs were assessed prior to their admission. People’s care plans were up–to-date and reflected the support people required to meet their needs. Where people’s needs had changed care plans were updated accordingly. People received care that met their needs and we observed staff knew people’s needs well.

People were encouraged to engage in activity opportunities and benefitted from a secure environment. The registered manager planned to make improvements to the external environment so people were able to enjoy their time in the garden.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place and people told us they would not hesitate to speak to staff if they had any concerns. The registered manager ensured people’s views were sought and acted on when needed.

The registered manager ensured the quality assurance systems were effective and worked to continuously enhance the quality of the care provided. They had a good overview of all actions identified through a number of audits and ensured any actions that required a follow up were completed.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 felt safe living at Beech Haven. People’s relatives told us they felt the service was safe. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in keeping people safe from harm.

People’s risks such as risks of falls, mobility, malnutrition, moving and handling or skin damage were identified. However, we identified instances where there was no evidence available that the provider was doing all that is reasonably practicable to prevent avoidable harm or risk of harm to people who used the service. People received their medicine as prescribed and were protected against the risks associated with the management of medicines.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People were assisted promptly and with no unnecessary delay, we noted that the call bells were answered promptly.

The service had robust recruitment systems in place that helped the management make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. People were cared for by staff that were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities and had the relevant skills and experience. Staff told us they were well supported by the management. However, we found their formal supervision was not always recorded.

The registered manager and staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA is the legal framework that protects people’s right to make their own choices. DoLS were in place to ensure people’s liberty is not unlawfully restricted and where it is, that it is the least restrictive practice. We noted that whilst care plans provided information about people’s capacity the documentation was lacking decision specific capacity assessments. As a result of this inspection the provider has now implemented decision specific capacity assessments.

People were complimentary about the service and staff. Throughout the inspection there was a pleasant atmosphere and we saw people being supported in a professional, kind and caring manner. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and we saw many interactions which reflected staff understood and respected people’s preferences.

People’s care plans were detailed and personalised. Care plans were up to date, legible and we noted these were regularly reviewed. People commented positively about living in the home and they enjoyed a variety of activities.

People spoke positively about the register manager. The registered manager was aware of the further improvements required to the service. They undertook quality assurance audits to measure and monitor the standard of the service and drive improvement.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

The service was not safe because staff were unaware of the multiagency safeguarding procedures for the home. A nurse was not aware of the procedure to follow when an allegation of abuse was made.

The service did not have systems in place to ensure people's medicines were administered safely or recorded appropriately. The service maintained no records of the stock of people's prescribed medicines.

People were not always protected from risks associated with their care. For example we saw that people who were at the risk of dehydration and skin damage were not always receiving appropriate support as care workers did not follow the person's care plan.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. During our visit we found that the registered manager and senior staff had awareness of DoLS. We found that one person was potentially being deprived of their liberty, but a request for DoLS had not been made. The manager made an application for this during our visits. We spoke with the manager about the recent high court judgement around DoLS. They told us that they had awareness of this decision and had attended a recent conference.

Is the service effective?

The service was not effective because people's care plans were not always being followed by care staff. For example we saw that people's needs were recorded but there was not always effective guidance in place for staff to follow in relation to people's needs.

Care workers and nurses were appropriately trained and received frequent supervisions.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. People we spoke with were complementary about the home. We found that people benefitted from kind and caring care workers. We conducted a short observational framework for inspection (SOFI) observation in the one of the homes dining room at lunch. We saw during this observation that people were treated with respect.

During our inspection we received a concern about the end of life care of people at Beech Haven. Due to these concerns we returned to the home. No one was receiving end of life care at the time of our visit. Staff we spoke with had good awareness of people's end of life needs. We will continue to monitor this in future inspections.

Staff demonstrated good awareness of people's dignity and how they should respect this.

Is the service responsive?

We found that the service was not responsive. Staff did not always report incidents and accidents to the home's management.

We found that the management sought the views of people who use the service, their representatives and staff; however these were not always acted upon. For example, people raised concerns about the lack of activity and engagement. We saw that the management were aware of these concerns but no changes had been made.

Is the service well led?

We found that the service was not well led. The service did not audit accidents and incidents to identify any trends to inform service delivery.

The service had audits regarding medicines and care plans; however these audits were not always identifying risks and were not always being effectively used to take appropriate actions to address risks.

The management was unaware that fire doors were being obstructed from closing within the home. We raised these concerns with the manager on the first day of our inspection. On the second visit we noticed that staff were still obstructing fire doors from closing. This meant people were not always protected from risk in the event of a fire as staff did not follow correct practice.

We visited the home and spoke to one of the services directors. We also spoke to the registered manager, deputy matron, three care workers. We were able to speak with four people who lived in the home, and two relatives. One person told us 'I like it here very much'. A second person told us 'staff are very kind and caring'. Another person said, 'my husband is here as is being well cared for, we meet up upstairs'.

We observed care workers providing care in a sensitive and dignified manner. Personal care was carried out behind closed doors ensuring people's privacy was maintained.

We spoke with three care workers during our visit. Care workers were seen to be very motivated, caring and attentive to people. One care worker told us 'when we have an increase in people using the service, we have an increase in care workers'. Another care worker said 'Generally I feel very well supported'.

Beech Haven did not have an activities co-ordinator at the time of the inspection. Activities were organised by the care workers and were mainly in house. People we spoke with, who wanted to be involved in activities told us, 'we do tai chi'. another person told us " they could organise more activities outside of the home".

During our visit we observed that there were enough care workers to meet the assessed needs of the people who lived in the home. One person said 'sometimes there are more staff than others. I get seen to quite quickly'.

The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor and record that the service was meeting the needs of the people who lived there. They did this by gaining and recording feedback from the people who used the services, their relatives and visiting professionals.

People were encouraged to give their consent to care wherever possible. Staff delivered care to people based on their assessed needs which were reviewed regularly. People we spoke with told us that staff were courteous and treated them with respect. Visitors said that the staff were friendly, kind and caring. Staff said they felt supported and enjoyed working there because the place had a 'homely feel.' A relative had written in a letter of thanks 'I knew X could be difficult at times but he felt safe with you and it was his home and you looked after him very well.'

Some aspects of the administration and recording of medicines was not sufficiently robust and may put some people at risk by not having the medicines they need when they need them.

There was an effective complaints procedure in place.