Beaufort House

Updated 20 April 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 1 April 2021 and was announced.

Updated 20 April 2021

Beaufort House is a care home providing accommodation, personal care and support for up to seven adults who have a learning disability, physical disability or mental health conditions. There were six people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager 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.

At the last inspection on 6 October 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of appropriately skilled staff to meet their needs and keep them safe. Robust recruitment procedures were followed to ensure only suitable staff were employed. Staff understood their responsibilities in safeguarding people from abuse and knew how to report any concerns they had.

Risks to people’s safety were identified and action taken to keep people as safe as possible. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and measures implemented to reduce the risk of them happening again. Health and safety and fire safety checks were carried out regularly to ensure the home was safe and well maintained. The provider had developed a contingency plan to ensure that people’s care would continue in the event of an emergency.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Staff maintained appropriate standards of hygiene and cleanliness and followed safe infection control procedures.

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home to ensure staff could provide the support they required. Staff had the training and support they needed to carry out their roles effectively. All staff attended an induction when they started work and had access to ongoing training. Specific training was provided if people developed needs that required it. The provider supported staff to achieve further qualifications relevant to their roles.

People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were respected. Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to their care and how people communicated their decisions. People who lacked capacity received appropriate support when decisions that affected them were made. The provider ensured that all relevant people were consulted to ensure decisions were made in people’s best interests. Applications for DoLS authorisations had been submitted where restrictions were imposed upon people to keep them safe,

People were able to make choices about the food they ate and were supported to maintain a healthy diet. Staff ensured that individual support guidelines around diet and nutrition were followed. People were supported to maintain good health and to obtain treatment when they needed it. Staff were observant of any changes in people’s healthcare needs and responded promptly if they became unwell. Each person had a health action plan which detailed their health needs and the support they needed.

The home provided bright and spacious accommodation. People had been encouraged to choose the décor and were able to personalise their bedrooms. Equipment and adaptations were in place to meet people’s mobility needs.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them and there was a homely, caring atmosphere in the home. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity. They respected people’s individual rights and promoted their independence. People were supported to make choices about their care and to maintain relationships with their friends and families.

People received care that was personalised to their individual needs. Support plans reflected people’s needs, preferences and ambitions. People’s needs were kept under review and their support plans updated if their needs changed.

People had opportunities to take part in activities that reflected their interests and preferences. People were supported to access the local community and had developed relationships within their community.

There were appropriate procedures for managing complaints. People told us they had not needed to complain but were confident any concerns they had would be listened to and acted upon.

People, relatives and staff benefited from good leadership provided by the registered manager. Relatives and healthcare professionals told us the home was managed well and that communication from the home was good. Staff said the registered manager and deputy manager supported them well and valued them for the work they did. They told us their suggestions for improvements were encouraged. There was a strong team ethos and staff said they received good support from their colleagues.

People who lived at the home, their relatives and other stakeholders had opportunities to give their views and the provider responded positively to feedback. The provider’s quality monitoring systems were effective in ensuring people received good quality care and support. Important areas of the service were audited regularly and action plans were developed when areas for improvement were identified.

Staff had established effective links with health and social care professionals to ensure people received the care they needed. The standard of record-keeping was good. People’s care records were kept up to date and stored accessibly yet securely. The registered manager had notified CQC and other relevant incidents of notifiable events when necessary.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.