Beech House

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to 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.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. People were supported by staff and a management team who took active steps to ensure there was a fair and open culture where concerns could be raised safely, and any unsafe practices identified and rectified. One relative said, “I have no concerns about safety whatsoever. Beech House is safe and supportive.”

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People had individual communication and needs passports which were reviewed when there was a change in need. These went with them to appointments or assessments to support continuity of care and equal access to services. One relative told us they felt reassured by staff supporting their family member to appointment and treatments as they knew the right information would be given.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People were supported by staff who had been trained in safeguarding and knew what to do if they suspected something was wrong. Risks associated with closed cultures had been identified. People had access to professionals, family and friends outside of the service they could raise concerns about their safety with.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People were supported in the development of their individual risk assessments. If needed, those close to them were also involved. People were supported by staff who knew the individual risks and assisted them in the least restrictive way possible whilst minimising the potential for harm. People were not subjected to any restrictive practices and were supported to live the life they wanted.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People lived in a home which was safely maintained and staff completed regular checks on the physical environment to minimise the potential for harm. One relative said, “[Relative’s name] is so comfortable with their home, they can move freely and confidently around free from trips or falls. This has increased their confidence immensely.” People had their individual sensory needs assessed and considered and the environment adapted in consideration of these needs. For example, there was an automated system which provided information to people which they could access when they needed.

The service 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. People and relatives told us they were supported by enough staff to effectively support them. We saw people interacting with staff in a relaxed and friendly way. People were supported to direct their day and staff responded positively to them. Staff had been safely recruited.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. People were supported in a home which was clean and tidy where staff followed effective infection prevention and control practices.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People’s medicines were regularly reviewed to ensure they were prescribed for the right reason. When people needed “as and when” medicines, these were safely recorded with the maximum dose in a 24 hour period and time between administration documented. People’s medicines were supported by individual medication care plans detailing what the medicine was and when it was needed.