Archived: The Beacon Intermediate Care Unit

Updated 26 July 2018

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 registered 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 27 June 2018 and was completed by two adult social care inspectors 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.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also checked our systems for any notifications as these would tell us how the provider managed incidents and accidents that affected the welfare of people who used the service.

We contacted the local Healthwatch and local authority safeguarding teams to obtain their views about the service. Healthwatch is an independent consumer group, which gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

During the inspection we observed how care and support was provided to people. We spoke with 12 people who used the service and eight relatives. We had discussions with the nominated individual, the registered manager, the business administrator, two assistant practitioners, a care officer, three care workers, a cook, social worker, physiotherapist and occupational therapist. We also spoke with the community pharmacist.

We looked at six people’s care and medicine records, three staff files and the training matrix as well as records relating to the management of the service. We also looked around the building.

Updated 26 July 2018

The inspection took place on 27 June 2018 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 22 and 23 May 2017, the service had an overall rating of ‘Requires Improvement.’ We had found concerns with medicines management and governance systems. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions, Is the service safe and well-led? to at least good. We received a comprehensive action plan. At this current inspection, we looked at the previous breach of regulations and the action plan to check that improvements had been made and sustained over a period of time. We found good improvements had been made.

The Beacon Intermediate Care Unit is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The Beacon Intermediate Care Unit is registered to accommodate 27 people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection 20 people were using the service. The service provides short term reablement to maximise the independence of people and enable them to return to living in their own home in the community. The service comprises care, therapy (occupational therapy and physiotherapy) and social work intervention all based in the same building. The service also provides a range of facilities and equipment to support people’s reablement needs.

The service had a new registered manager. 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.

We found improvements had been made to the medicines management systems to ensure they were safe. Staff administration and recording practices had improved through additional training, assessment, supervision, participation in work-shops and regular meetings.

Quality assurance systems had been reviewed and maintained since the last inspection and we saw action had been taken when issues had been identified. The provider had worked hard at implementing positive changes and was committed to ensuring improvements were sustained and developed further, to ensure people received high quality care. Staff described the culture of the organisation as open and management as supportive and approachable.

A robust recruitment process was in place, which ensured staff had the necessary values, skills, experience and were suitable to work with people who used the service. Staff received the training and support they needed to carry out their roles and meet people’s needs. The provider monitored staffing levels regularly, to ensure staffing levels were sufficient and staff deployment was effective.

Staff had received training and had procedures to guide them in safeguarding people from the risk of harm and abuse. In discussions, staff were clear about how they would escalate concerns and which agencies they would contact for advice.

People told us they felt safe. Staff had completed assessments with people to identify risk areas and the steps required to minimise risk. People received care tailored to meet their individual needs and the care recording systems were being fully transferred over to the electronic format.

The service was operating within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 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 health and nutritional needs were met. Records showed people had access to a range of community healthcare professionals for advice and treatment. These included dieticians when people lost weight and required additional support. The menus provided varied meals with choices and alternatives. The lunchtime experience was relaxed and had a social atmosphere with lots of chatter and interaction from staff. People told us they liked the meals provided to them.

We observed caring interactions between staff and people. Staff engaged positively with people, encouraging and supporting their independence. Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of people’s needs and worked together as a team. They were cheerful and supported the privacy and dignity of people as they went about their work.

The provider had a complaints procedure and people told us they felt able to raise concerns and these would be addressed by management.

The environment was clean, tidy and safe. Staff had access to personal, protective equipment which helped them to prevent and control the spread of infection. Improvements had been made to the facilities, with more planned through a comprehensive renewal programme.