Archived: Beech Court Care Home

Updated 12 July 2016

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 25 May 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Prior to our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports, information received and statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also contacted commissioners (who fund the care for some people) of the service and asked them for their views.

During our inspection we spoke with three people who were using the service, five relatives, two members of care staff, the registered manager and the care manager. We also observed the way staff cared for people in the communal areas of the building. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We looked at the care plans of two people and any associated daily records such as their food and fluid charts. We looked at two staff files as well as a range of records relating to the running of the service such as audits and four medication administration records.

Updated 12 July 2016

This inspection took place on 25 May 2016 and was unannounced. Beech Court Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 23 people. At the time of our inspection 11 people were living at the home. People were supported with a variety of physical health needs as well as dementia related care.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

People felt safe and staff knew what actions to take to keep people safe. Risks to people’s health and safety were appropriately managed and staff also promoted people’s independence.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. People received their medicines as prescribed and they were administered by competent staff.

People were asked to provide consent to their care where possible and relatives were involved in making decisions when this was appropriate, although completed capacity assessments were not always available where people lacked capacity to make their own decisions.

Staff told us that they felt well supported and we saw that they were provided with the training required to meet people’s needs. Support for people to access healthcare services was provided consistently. People enjoyed the food and told us they were provided with sufficient quantities of food and drink.

There were warm and friendly interactions between people and staff and we observed staff talking respectfully to people. People and their relatives were able to be involved in planning and reviewing their care and staff respected any choices people made. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

People were happy with the support they received and staff provided person-centred care. Staff had access to up to date information about people’s needs and knew people well. There was a limited provision of activities for people within the home and some people and relatives felt that more activities would be beneficial. People felt able to make a complaint and were provided with information about the complaints process.

Feedback about the quality of the service was welcomed, however not everybody was aware of how they could give their opinions, for example by attending the ‘residents and relatives’ meetings. There was an open and transparent culture in the home, people and relatives felt the management team led by example. A range of audits was available and, where these had been carried out, they were effective in bringing about improvements.