Beaumont 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

People and those important to them were supported to understand safeguarding and how to raise concerns when they did not feel safe. Staff understood their duty to protect people from abuse and knew how and when to report any concerns they had to managers. Safety risks to people were managed inconsistently as care plans had not always been updated. Some care plans were detailed while others were not. There were enough staff to support people with their needs and staff were recruited safely. Medicines were managed safely. The home was clean and well maintained. All of the quality statements in safe were included this assessment.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us they felt safe living at Beaumont House. Relatives we spoke with told us they felt Beaumont house was safe place for their loved ones. A person we spoke with said, “There’s always someone to check on me which makes me feel safe” and a relative we spoke with said, “It’s like coming into a safe haven. They keep my relative safe.” People told us that there were no unlawful restrictions imposed on them. For example, a person told us, they preferred to keep their bedroom door unlocked but staff supported them to lock it when they wished.

Staff understood how to respond to allegations of abuse. Staff told us that they had no concerns, but if they did, they were confident the management team would act appropriately. Staff were confident in using whistleblowing processes if they felt concerns were not being responded to. Both the registered manager and home manager understood how to respond to allegations of abuse. They had a clear process of how to investigate and keep people safe. Staff knew who to report safeguarding concerns to both internally and externally.

Our observations raised no concerns regarding safeguarding at this service. All staff treated people kindly. There was a welcoming warm atmosphere, and all people looked relaxed in staff’s company.

Safeguarding concerns were reported to the relevant authority, action was taken to reduce any ongoing risks to people whilst waiting for an outcome from the safeguarding team. All safeguarding concerns were robustly investigated, the registered manager worked in partnership with the local authority to ensure any safeguarding concerns were reported and resolved without delay. If an allegation of abuse was made, there were policies in place to support staff team. Records showed incidents were investigated and referred to the local authority safeguarding team if needed. We found action had been taken following a safeguarding concern to protect people from neglect or abuse. Staff received training in safeguarding and information relating to safeguarding in a designated file which staff had access to. Safeguarding information was detailed in the service user guide for people and their families. This meant people had accurate information to report safeguarding concerns if needed.

People told us most staff understood risks relating to their individual needs and offered support to keep them safe. However, some people told us, agency staff in use at times did not always fully understand their individual risks. For example, a relative we spoke with said, “staff who know my relative and know how they like to sit and how often they need repositioning.” However, another person we spoke with said, “The agency staff don’t know me as well as the full-time staff.” People told us they engaged in the decision-making process and staff supported them to take positive risks to maximise their independence.

Staff gave us mixed feedback about they supported people. For example, staff told us how they supported people to manage risks relating to their mobility. However, some staff were unclear in how to safely support people with risks associated with their nutritional needs. We fed this back to the management team who acted immediately to ensure all staff had clear information in regards to risks relating to nutritional needs. Staff knew how to support people with dementia and the associated side effects of living with dementia. Staff told us how they applied their training to ensure people were supported safely. The management team were responsive to our feedback and acted without delay, this meant any risks to people’s safety was reduced.

Our observations raised no concerns regarding Involving people to manage risks at this service. We observed staff to support people safely.

People had care plans in place. However, we found people’s needs and risks were inconsistently documented in care plans. This meant staff did not always have clear guidance on people’s individual risks, mental, physical, and social needs. For example, a person who lived with a catheter had conflicting information documented within their care plans. Another person did not have a moving and handling risk assessment in place. However, a person who lived with advanced dementia had a clear plan in place to ensure staff had the right guidance to reduce episodes of distress. We discussed this with the management team who reviewed and updated risk assessments during our assessment.

People told us they felt safe in their environment at Beaumont House. People said, they had access to call bells which they used to call for support when needed. People told us, if they wanted, they were able to lock their bedroom doors which helped them feel secure and safe in their personal space.

Staff knew how to monitor the safety of the environment, and where to report any maintenance concerns too. Staff told us, they raised any maintenance issues at daily flash meetings to ensure they were rectified without delay. The management team described a clear process for monitoring the safety of the environment. Staff were aware of their responsibility to ensure the environment remained safe.

The home was well maintained and safe. Where people needed specialist equipment this was in place. For example, we observed falls sensors in place and bed rails. This meant where people were at risk of falls risk reduction measures were in place and maintained.

Processes in place meant the environment was kept safe. Regular checks of the environment and equipment were completed by a competent member of staff. We found there had been monthly checks of hoists and fire doors. Regular checks of equipment meant they remained safe for people to use which reduced the risk of harm. Servicing of fire alarm, electrical and gas systems were carried out by qualified contractors. This ensured systems remained in safe working order and reduced the risk of harm to people.

People gave us mixed feedback about the number of staff on duty. Whilst some people told us they felt there were enough staff, others felt sometimes more staff would allow them to spend more time with them. For example, a person we spoke with said,” We’ve had no issues with staffing - I see people to chat with” whereas another person said, “Some days they seem stretched.” People told us they felt safe with staff and that all staff treated them with respect and kindness, a person we spoke with said, “Oh they’re so nice - I’ve never had any negative staff.”

Staff we spoke with told us the management team at Beaumont House were approachable. Staff told us there had been several changes at the home, but these were positive, and they felt well supported. Prior to our assessment we had concerns raised about staffing at the home, but we found no evidence to support these concerns. The registered manager, home manager and nominated individual discussed in detail the importance of staff well being and how this impacts on the quality of care. The provider had several initiatives available to staff these included counselling support, monthly newsletters and staff surveys.

We found there were enough staff to provide support to people safely. Staff were deployed effectively around the home, to provide timely care and support to people. Staff appeared to know people well, and we observed staff to anticipate people’s needs where they could not do this independently. We observed both people and their visitors to be relaxed in the company of staff.

Processes in place ensured there were enough suitably trained staff on duty. There was a dependency tool in place considering people’s individual needs. This determined how many staff were required each day to support people safely. Staff were recruited safely. Processes ensured necessary checks were completed prior to staff starting at Beaumont House This included reference checks, proof of identity as well as Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. A DBS check is a way for employers to check an employee criminal record, to help decide whether they are a suitable person to work for them. This protected people from receiving support from unsuitable staff.

People told us that the home was clean and tidy. A person we spoke with said, “We’re very happy with the cleanliness here - the staff work very hard.” Another person we spoke with told us, “It’s perfect here and very clean.”

Staff knew what personal protective equipment they should wear and when. Staff knew how to put on and remove this equipment, in a safe way. This protected people from the spread of infection. Staff had received food hygiene training; they were able to explain what actions they took to reduce the risk of food bourne infections.

The home was exceptionally clean and hygienic. We found the environment had been very well maintained. Any issues were quickly resolved. We saw that staff had access to personal protective equipment (like gloves) throughout the home. This allowed them to support people in a hygienic way.

There were clear processes and policies, to ensure the environment was kept clean and hygienic. This protected people from the spread of infection. Staff had received training in infection control. Cleaning schedules in place meant staff knew what needed cleaning and when. Infection control audits in place highlighted areas for improvement, any actions were quickly resolved.

People we spoke with told us staff supported them to take their medicines. We received no negative feedback in regards to medicines.

Staff told us that they completed training to safely provide support to people with their medicines. Staff were able to describe safe systems for medicine management. Staff told us they completed both online training and face to face training. Staff told us they completed supervised medicine administration rounds prior to administering them independently.

Staff kept clear records of when they had given prescribed medicines. We found medicines were given as prescribed. People had medicine administration records in place which detailed how they like to take their medicines and what support they needed. This meant staff had accurate information to support people safely. We found where people had pain relief patches prescribed charts were in place to inform the staff where the patch had been placed. These records are important as application of patches to the same area of skin increases the risk of skin becoming inflamed and broken. Controlled drugs were stored according to guidance. Staff completed regular checks for controlled drugs. Controlled drugs are subject to government restrictions due to the risk of harm and/or addiction. Completing regular stock checks of these medicines provides assurances of management of these high-risk medicines. The management team had regularly assessed the staff’s competency, to ensure they were following best practice.