Beckfield House Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.   At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has improved to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. 

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. The service held regular residence meetings where people were asked what they would like to see on the menu and what activities they would like to see within the service. Relatives told us their family members wishes were respected. One relative told us how their relative had been given choices about where their inhaler was kept so that they were in control. However, the person had preferred the inhaler to be locked away in the clinic with their other medicines.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People were encouraged to be part of the local community. The service hosted the local parish council and had visits from children from the local primary school. People were supported to attend church as well, as trips to the pub.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff supported people with their individual communication needs. We saw people given options around food and drink. Some people would point at pictures which staff were using to communicate. Staff supported other people by explaining their options to them.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The activities team ran monthly residents meeting, which were well attended. People gave honest feedback to staff and the management team. This feedback enabled the service to act on what people wanted to see happening in the home. Relatives told us they had faith in the registered manager and the management team who would act on any concerns promptly.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.  All people and relatives said they were had fair and equal access to the service and were referred for additional services when they needed them.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People were encouraged to openly talk about the things that mattered to them.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Care records showed people had been asked about planning for the future. It was documented if people did not want to have this conversation yet. Some people’s relatives told us they had not had conversations with the staff about planning for the future. However, 1 relative told us staff had spoken to them at length giving them and their loved one options around the care they might want to receive if they were to be admitted to hospital or needed other support at the home. The relative said they were impressed with the explanation staff gave and how well they explained everything.