Beech Lawn Care Home

Updated 16 October 2020

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.

This inspection took place on 7 August 2020 and was announced. The service was selected to take part in this thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.

Updated 16 October 2020

This comprehensive inspection took place on 7 August 2018 and was unannounced. Beech Lawn Care Home is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to a maximum of 28 older people, including those who may be living with dementia related conditions. The provider operates with 21 places. At the time of this inspection the service was being provided to 18 people. Beech Lawn Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At the last inspection in June 2017 the service did not meet all of the regulations we assessed under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At that inspection the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’. This was because the provider was in breach of regulation 17: Good governance, with regard to not having effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service or to mitigate risks. The provider had not made applications to the local authority where they restricted people’s freedom.

At this inspection the service was rated ‘Good’. This was because the provider met the regulation on good governance. They had systems in place to monitor the quality of service delivery, which included action plans for making changes. We saw no evidence of how conclusions were reached and information was processed within these systems and discussed with the registered manager how these could be developed.

The provider was required to have a registered manager and the same one had been in post for the last seven years. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like 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 the risk of harm. Systems were in in place to detect, monitor and report potential or actual safeguarding concerns. Staff were appropriately trained in this area and understood their responsibilities. Risks for people were managed and reduced so that they avoided injury or harm. The premises were safely maintained and we saw documentary evidence of this. Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s needs. Recruitment practices were safely carried out. The management of medication and prevention and control of infection were safe.

Qualified and competent staff supported people and were themselves regularly supervised and appraised regarding their personal performance. People’s rights were protected regarding their mental capacity and staff understood the importance of obtaining people's consent. Decisions were only made in peoples’ best interests where they lacked capacity to make them. People received adequate nutrition and hydration. The premises were suitable for providing care to older people and those living with dementia.

People received compassionate care from kind staff who knew about people’s needs and preferences. People were involved in the management of their care and decision making. Information was provided to people in an accessible format. People’s wellbeing, privacy, dignity and independence were monitored and respected.

People had person-centred care plans, which reflected their needs well. These were regularly reviewed. There were opportunities for people to engage in pastimes and activities. People were supported to maintain family connections and support networks. An effective complaint procedure ensured people’s complaints were investigated without bias. Support to people at the end of life was sensitively and suitably provided.

The culture of the service and the management style were both open and approachable. People had opportunities to make their views known through satisfaction surveys. Records were stored securely which helped to maintain confidentiality.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.