The Beaufort Care 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

Staff delivered care that helped meet and support people’s current and changing needs. Staff said information was passed to them at daily handovers. However, we found people’s care delivery and information was not always personalised to them, or in some cases accurate. People were confident they would be referred to other healthcare professionals if a need was identified. However, person centred care was not always provided because some health professional advice was not always followed or understood by staff. Staff recognised people’s preferred communication methods and the importance of ensuring people had information in a way they understood. Staff involved people in making decisions and choices about how their care was delivered.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We got mixed feedback from people and relatives. The majority felt they were not always involved in care plan discussions. Most people and relatives had not seen a care plan. Most people felt staff provided task-based care, but people’s individual personalities, hobbies and interests was not always known. People generally felt that the care staff knew how to support them. People and relatives said they were able to raise and share any feedback and some relatives said actions had been taken as a result of doing this.

Staff said they understood people’s likes, dislikes and routines. Staff treated people as individuals, respecting their individual characteristics. Staff told us they gave people control of their care, without taking over unless this was necessary for safety or risk management. We found staff who administered people’s medicines did not have a thorough understanding of when and why some people needed them at specific times and in a specific way to maintain their effectiveness in managing some people’s health conditions. A lack of understanding had potential to put people at potential risk.

Care staff were busy, supporting people with their care needs. A number of people were in bed so this meant staff went into those rooms which on occasions, left the floor short of staff at times. On our 2nd day, we saw a number of contractors who were working at the home, sat at communal dining tables. Staff served the contractors their meals first, before those people living at the home. This meant people who were sat at tables ready to eat, did not get their meals until almost 1 hour later. This was not a person centred approach to good care. We also found some people who needed time critical medicines did not receive them at the required times. People's care records were not always reflective of the support they required.

People received support from a consistent staff team. People told us staff knew them well and were confident with the support they gave them. People told us they were asked about gender of preferences for those who supported them. People told us if needed, they saw a regular doctor who completed weekly rounds.

Nursing staff and managers said they worked with other health professionals when required, such as speech and language therapists, occupation therapists and district nurses. A weekly GP round took place. During our visit we saw paramedics arrived. Nursing staff supported them with providing important information for that person. Staff said the staff team were consistent which helped them know people’s needs.

Feedback was positive from a health professional. Feedback included, “I am confident that the staff know their residents well. A health professional staff when it came to taking people from hospital, staff needed to clarify what outcomes were expected for some people with regards to manage their mobility or continence.

Processes to check people’s clinical care needs and risks were not well managed, especially when people’s needs changed. We saw records to show health professional advice was sought, however it was not always followed by staff. We found examples of staff changing a person’s modified diet without further consultation with a specialist.

People had the information they needed to understand what care provision they required. However, most people and relatives had not seen a care plan or had been part of any care reviews. Relatives felt communication was fine and they were kept updated when needs changed. People and relatives said they would raise any concerns if required. People felt they had the information they needed at this time.

Staff knew which people required hearing aids, glasses or who needed staff to speak to them more clearly. Some people whose first language was non English, received support from some staff members who knew certain languages or methods to help communicate with those people. In one case, one person used picture cards to express choices. Staff said they communicated well with people, as well as each other and the team worked well together.

People’s care information recorded what support they needed such as hearing aids and glasses. Assessing the person before they moved into the home helped make sure, information and communication with staff could be understood by all. Signage around the home helped people orientate to their surroundings.

People and relatives feedback to us was mixed. Not everyone knew how or who to complain to. Some people and relatives were satisfied, and confident actions would be taken. For the majority, people would confide in their family members. People’s feedback and experience about being involved was their feedback was not always valued or listened to. People gave examples of sharing feedback about wanting to go outdoors and do more within the home to keep stimulated. People said they had raised some issues, but limited action was taken.

Staff understood how to support a person with an issue or complaint. One staff member said he would look for any evidence to support a concern, raise with the manager and keep the person informed. Where complaints were raised, these were investigated.

There were processes to record complaints, however people’s feedback was not always sought. We saw no evidence of people’s feedback or surveys had been gathered. Some people told us they did not know who the manager was. Care plans were not person centred and those we reviewed did not fully describe the individual support those people required. The process to review care records needed improvement. Most people and relatives said they had not seen a care plan. There was no effective process to review and capture people’s ongoing and changing needs or what if any changes they wanted to make.

People were supported by external health professionals when needed. During our visit, we saw a relative with paramedics who were called to assist with their relative. Nursing staff supported the onsite paramedics with important information about the person. People’s feedback was mixed about whether they were able to access the garden. Some people wanted to go outside but were not taken. We saw staff bring people into the garden once we raised it with the manager. One person told us they were seeing a chiropodist later this month.

Staff told us they raised any concerns with nursing staff or if people needed to see the GP. Staff said daily handovers included updates on people and how people were feeling. Staff felt people got the support they needed. Staff described processes in place to share information and escalate concerns when required about people so they could get necessary healthcare support and treatment.

A health professional told us they made regular visits to the home to make sure, people received any health support they needed. In some cases, people were referred to other specialists for support. A health professional said staff were good at monitoring people and making any further referrals when needed.

People could access care, treatment and support when they need to and in a way that worked for them. However, processes did not always make sure, medical advice was not always followed. Processes did not always make people feel in control of planning their care and support because not everyone had seen or were involved in their care plan. We found health professional advice was not always and checks had not identified this.

People felt at times they were seldom heard. We got mixed feedback from people and relatives. On balance, people and relatives were less positive. Comments included, “We haven’t seen her care plan”, “We don’t get feedback until we ask” and “I don’t know who I’d talk to if there was a problem apart from my family.” People felt staff were busy and had limited time to sit, talk and listen to them, although people spoke positively to us about the care they received. They told us they had access to appointments with other healthcare professionals when needed.

Staff recognised people as individuals. Staff knew each person needed their support personalised to them. Where people had difficulties expressing those needs, staff involved the person by using picture cards to understand what they meant or wanted. Staff spoke with families to keep them updated.

Care plans included equality and people’s rights, choices and religious and spiritual requirements. A person’s mental health needs and the impact this had on their wellbeing were described and potential triggers to be aware of to manage people’s emotions. Support plans guided staff to monitor people’s health to identify when they may need referral to others involved in their care for advice and support, however some care plans and individual risks remained incorrect.

No one we spoke with, or their relatives told us about end of life planning. However, people’s care information recorded where people had made important decisions about what if any interventions they wanted if they experienced a cardiac event. Those documents were clearly recorded, and this information was also recorded in any information that would accompany the person in the event of hospital admission.

Staff knew where people had mad important decisions. Where people had made advance decisions about their care should they become acutely unwell or they had a cardiac arrest, this was recorded in their support plans. This Information was in the front of people’s care folders so staff could share with other healthcare professionals without delay in an emergency.

Processes included hospital passports that contained important information to go with that person. We have already said, processes did not always work effectively to ensure people’s care records remained accurate and reflective of the care and support they required. There was no evidence shown to us, trends and patterns were completed.