Beaumont Village

Updated 10 November 2017

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 18 October 2017 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because we needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available to assist us. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service which included previous inspection reports and notifications they had sent us. Notifications are sent to the Care Quality Commission to inform us of important events relating to the service which they must tell us about by law. A Provider Information Return (PIR) had been completed. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to help us plan the inspection.

We also considered the responses given to the questionnaires completed by three people and a relative of a person who uses the service as well as six staff. We contacted five community professionals including service commissioners and received feedback from three. We contacted the local authority safeguarding team who told us there were no current concerns with the service.

During the inspection we spoke with five people who use the service and three relatives of people using the service. We spoke with the registered manager and three members of care staff. We received written feedback from a further 12 staff. We looked at records relating to the management of the service including four people’s care plans and associated records including those for medicines administration. Four staff files and recruitment records were reviewed as well as a selection of records relating to the management of the service including, policies and procedures, the complaints log, training records, quality assurance audits and accident/incident records.

Updated 10 November 2017

This inspection took place on 18 October 2017 and was announced. It was the first inspection of the service since it registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 September 2016. Beaumont Village is an extra care service providing support to people living in apartments and bungalows within the grounds of the village complex. The service operates from an office within the village. At the time of the inspection they provided personal care to 21 people.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

Recruitment procedures helped to ensure suitable staff were employed at the service. Appropriate recruitment checks were carried out. However, the provider had not gained a full employment history for all staff and was therefore unable to identify and check for gaps in employment history. This had not had an impact on people and the registered manager took immediate action to rectify this when it was pointed out to them.

People were safe and well cared for. They were involved in planning and reviewing their care. Staff sought consent before they provided care and support. People felt staff treated them with respect and dignity. Staff had received training in safeguarding people and understood their responsibilities to protect people and report any concerns. They were confident any issues reported regarding people’s safety were dealt with promptly by the registered manager.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines when they required them. Communication in the service was efficient and staff were promptly provided with up to date information concerning people’s care. When necessary staff contacted healthcare professionals to seek advice regarding people’s well-being.

Staff received an effective induction and ongoing training. They received support through one to one supervision meetings and annual appraisals were planned. The registered manager was praised for their support and staff acknowledged there was an open door policy. People too, commented on how the registered manager’s door was always open if they wished to speak with her.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. We were told staff were caring and respectful and they preserved dignity and privacy when supporting people. People were helped to remain as independent as they wished to be and the service aimed to enable people to stay in their own home for as long as they wanted. People were able to discuss their wishes regarding the care they would like to receive at the end of their lives.

Attention was paid to people’s diversity and they were assisted to meet their cultural and spiritual needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s views on the service were sought, they felt they were listened to and acted upon. Complaints were investigated and responded to in accordance with the provider’s policy.

Regular monitoring of the service helped to maintain and improve the quality of the service. Links with the local community were fostered and people were helped to avoid the negative effects of social isolation.