Beaumont House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

There were clear and effective governance, management, and accountability arrangements. Staff felt well supported by the management team and there was an open and honest culture. Systems in place promoted quality improvement. The registered manager was aware of their legal responsibilities. Information was used effectively to monitor and improve the quality of care. We only looked at 3 quality statements during this assessment in this key question.

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.

Staff and the management team knew people well. The management team were experienced and staff we spoke with were confident in their leadership. The management team discussed recent issues at the home and how they had overcome them. An external independent person had investigated any concerns relating to the management team thoroughly and found the management team carried out their duties effectively and with people’s needs at the heart of their role. The management team recognised at times they had to make difficult decisions to ensure the quality of care improved. Staff told us there had been several positive changes since the management took over and the experience for people had improved as a result. Staff felt confident if issues were raised with the management team they were acted upon without delay.

The registered manager was experienced and worked in partnership with the home manager and nominated individual to ensure the service was well led. Processes in place ensured the quality of the service was monitored and maintained. The provider had recently introduced a new audit tool to be used on daily walk rounds and meetings at all their homes. This detailed tool ensured areas were monitored daily and any issues acted upon without delay. The registered manager had support from the provider’s other homes where needed to share ideas and learn from.

There was an open and honest culture whereby staff at the service were supported to speak up. We received anonymous concerns prior to this assessment relating to the culture of the service but found no evidence to support these concerns. Staff told us, the registered manager and home manager were approachable and that if they needed to raise concerns, their concerns would be acted on. The registered manager told us, meetings and supervisions were held to encourage staff to raise concerns and share ideas in a forum they felt confident.

Policies in place supported staff to raise concerns both internally and externally. Regular meetings were held and recorded to allow for staff not able to attend to review the content. Actions of meetings were documented to ensure any action needed was completed. Whistle blowing processes were displayed for staff and a 24-hour contact line was available to ensure staff could raise concerns if needed. An embedded process was in place to ensure all concerns were investigated without delay, we found action was taken when needed and support provided to staff in line with the providers policy.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us there had been several changes recently, but they felt this was positive for both staff and people using the service. Staff felt supported by the registered manager and home manager and told us they would act on any concerns to ensure the safety and welfare of people using the service. The registered manager was aware of their regulatory requirements and responsibility under the duty of candour. Duty of candour is a professional responsibility to be honest with people when things go wrong. The registered manager, home manager and nominated individual were open and honest throughout the assessment process. The management team displayed a positive attitude to the assessment process and were responsive to feedback.

Governance systems in place were effective. Audits in place detailed what action was needed by who and by what date. This meant processes in place promoted quality improvement. A wide range of audits including incident analysis and medicines were in place to ensure the service learnt from any errors. Audits were shared with staff during handovers and daily flash meetings with clear action on what the team needed to do, to ensure issues were addressed in a timely manner. Policies were in place to ensure staff knew how to perform their duties in line with guidance, legislation, and the providers own ways of working. Emergency contingency plans were in place to ensure staff had guidance in the event of an emergency.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.