Archived: Beechcare Care Home

Updated 26 May 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 4 April 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by three inspectors including a bank inspector and one expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of in this case using or caring for someone whose uses this type of older person nursing care service.

Before the inspection, we looked at previous inspection reports and notifications about important events that had taken place in the home, which the provider is required to tell us by law. We used all this information to decide which areas to focus on during our inspection.

We looked at previous inspection reports and notifications about important events that had taken place in the home, which the provider is required to tell us by law. We used all this information to decide which areas to focus on during our inspection.

We spoke with 10 people, six relatives, ten staff including the registered manager, deputy manager who was a qualified nurse and clinical lead, a senior manager visiting the home, a nurse, care staff, activity coordinator, and the chef and his assistant. We also spoke with one visiting GP.

We spoke with people and we observed people’s care and support in communal areas throughout our visit to help us understand the experiences people had. We looked at the provider’s records. These included six people’s records, which included care plans, health care notes, nursing interventions, risk assessments and daily records. We looked at five staff files, a sample of audits, feedback surveys, staff rotas, and policies and procedures. We also looked around the care home and the outside spaces available to people.

At our last inspection on 11 November 2014 we found the provider was meeting the essential standards which had been a follow up inspection regarding previous non-compliance.

Updated 26 May 2016

Beechcare Nursing Home provides accommodation for up to 40 people who needed nursing and personal care. All communal areas and bedrooms are on the ground floor. There is a garden to the rear and sides of the building. At the time of our visit, there were 40 people who lived in the home, although two people were in hospital when we visited. People had a variety of complex needs including physical health needs, mobility difficulties and a few people had early on set dementia.

There was a registered manager at the home. 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.

The home decoration looked tired in areas but there was an ongoing plan of works at the home. The home cleaning schedules showed the home was cleaned thoroughly. However we did see that infection control measures had been compromised in some parts of the home. Where we noticed any odour new flooring was already on order. We have made a recommendation about this.

There were sufficient numbers of qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. This included nursing and care staff who were not hurried or rushed and when people requested care or support, this was delivered quickly. However there had been isolated days when the home has not been fully covered. The provider operated safe recruitment procedures. We have made a recommendation about this.

The provider had systems in place to manage safeguarding matters and make sure that safeguarding alerts were raised with other agencies. People gave us positive feedback about the home. People felt safe and well supported.

The home had risk assessments in place to identify risks that may be involved when meeting people’s needs. The risk assessments showed ways that these risks could be reduced. Staff were aware of people’s individual risks and were able to tell us about the arrangements in place to

manage these safely.

Medicines were ordered, stored and administered safely. Clear and accurate medicines records were maintained.

Staff knew each person well and had a good knowledge of the needs of people who lived at the home. Training records showed that staff had completed training in a range of areas that reflected their job role. Staff told us that they had received supervision and appraisals were on-going.

Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions the home was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests. We found the home to be meeting the requirements of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

The food menus offered variety and choice. They provided people with nutritious and a well-balanced diet. People had choices of food at each meal time. People were offered more food if they wanted it and people that did not want to eat what had been cooked were offered alternatives. People with specialist diets had been catered for. The chef had a good understanding of how to make sure even puréed and soft diet could look appetising.

People and/or their family were involved in their care planning, and staff supported people with health care appointments and visits from health care professionals. Care plans were amended immediately to show any changes, and care plans were routinely reviewed every month to check they were up to date.

People were treated with kindness. Staff were patient and encouraged people to do what they could for themselves, whilst allowing people time for the support they needed. Staff encouraged people to make their own choices and promoted their independence.

People knew who to talk to if they had a complaint. Complaints were managed in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy.

People’s needs were fully assessed with them before they moved to the home to make sure that the home could meet their needs. Assessments were reviewed with the person and their relatives. People were encouraged to take part in activities and leisure pursuits of their choice; however trips in to the community were currently limited.

People spoke positively about the way the home was run. The management team and staff understood their respective roles and responsibilities. Staff told us that the registered manager and deputy manager were very approachable and understanding.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw that various audits had been undertaken.