Archived: Beaufort Lodge

Updated 2 March 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 10 February 2021 and was announced.

Updated 2 March 2021

The inspection took place 22 November 2018 and it was unannounced. Beaufort Lodge is a ‘care home’ for up to 21 older people. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. On the day of our inspection 17 people were using the service.

There was 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.

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.

People felt safe living at the service. Staff knew how to recognise abuse and how to report it. Risks were assessed so that staff knew what action to take to keep people safe. They did this while also promoting people’s independence and autonomy.

There were sufficient numbers of staff, with the required knowledge, skills and experience to support people with their needs. Recruitment processes were safe and this meant that so far as possible only people of suitable character and experience were employed.

Medicines were managed in a safe way. Staff had received training about this and knew the level of support people required with their medicine.

Staff were knowledgeable about the needs of the people they supported. People were supported to make choices around their care and daily lives. Staff had attended training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when assisting people.

Staff always gained consent before supporting people. There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and had a balanced diet. Staff worked hard to make each mealtime a positive and social experience. They supported people in a sensitive way. People had access to the healthcare professionals they required.

People were treated with kindness and compassion by the staff. Staff knew people well and often went that extra mile to make sure people were as comfortable as possible. People’s social needs as well as their physical and emotional needs were incorporated into their plan of care.

People and their relatives were involved in making decisions and planning their care, and their views were listened to and acted upon. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People knew how to raise concerns and had confidence that they would be listened to and action would be taken. Feedback provided was used to make improvements to the service.

People were complimentary about the registered manager and staff. It was clear that relationships between people and staff were positive and people had confidence in the service. There were effective quality monitoring systems. A variety of audits were carried out and this meant that any shortfalls were quickly identified and used to drive improvements.