Archived: Beech Court Care Centre

Updated 6 April 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 unannounced inspection took place on 28 February 2017. The inspection was completed by an 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.

Before the inspection we reviewed notifications we had received from the service. We also reviewed information sent to us by relatives. We contacted the local authority and Healthwatch for feedback about the service.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) during lunch time on Primrose. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We spoke with 10 people and 10 relatives. We case tracked five people, reviewed 15 medicine administration records, nine staff files and maintenance records. We reviewed complaints records, minutes of meetings and audits.

We spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager, two nurses, two care staff, a cook, one domestic staff, a maintenance man and an administrator. We also spoke briefly with the regional manager.

Updated 6 April 2017

This unannounced inspection took place on 28 February 2017. At our last inspection in January 2016 the service did not meet two legal requirements relating to consent to care and recruitment checks. At this inspection improvements had been made and the provider now met these two requirements.

Beech Court Care Centre is registered to provide accommodation, nursing care and personal care to a maximum of 50 people on three separate communities: Rosebud supports 20 people with nursing needs, Primrose supports 20 people some of whom may be living with dementia whilst Marigold supports up to 10 young people with disabilities. There is a garden area, a sensory room and communal areas on each community.

On the day of our visit a registered manager was in place. 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.

People told us they felt safe living at Beech Court Care Centre. They were treated with dignity and respect by staff who understood their needs.

Staff were aware of how to recognise and report any allegations of abuse and had attended safeguarding adults training.

There were systems in place to ensure risks were assessed and steps taken to mitigate the identified risks. Incidents and accidents were managed safely with clear actions taken to reduce the likelihood of the same incidents occurring.

Medicines were managed safely with the exception of covert medicine instructions. These were undergoing review by the pharmacist to ensure there were clear and specific for each medicine administered covertly.

Maintenance checks were completed in order to keep the premises safe. Staff were aware of the procedures to follow in the event of a fire or a medical emergency in order to reduce the risk of avoidable harm.

People and their relatives thought there were enough staff to support them with the exception of Marigold unit where they felt staff were rushed at times. Staffing rotas confirmed staffing was adjusted as and when needed in response to people’s dependencies as well as other care related issues such as GP review rounds.

Staff received annual appraisals, regular supervision and attended meetings to ensure they reflected on practice and were kept up to date with any changes or practice issues.

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.

Staff responded to call bells promptly. We observed staff treating people with dignity and respect and addressing people by their preferred names.

Care plans were person centred and reflected people’s emotional, social and physical needs. Currently activities were mainly one to one and a communal activity scheduled once in the morning and once in the afternoon.

People and their relatives thought there was an open culture. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care delivered. Feedback was actively sought from people their relatives and staff in order to improve the service.