Beckfield House Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.   At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant that peoples outcomes were consistently good and that feedback from people and their relatives confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure most people’s care and treatment were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being and communication needs with them.  The registered manager had a plan in place to review and update peoples care plans. Recent staff changes had led to care plans not being reviewed as often as the registered manager would have liked. When reviews took place people were involved. Relatives told us they felt staff knew their relative well and understood their care needs. Staff used a range of communication aids to individually support people at the service. For example, when asking people what they would like to choice from the menu, the staff had the option of using photos cards of the food on offer.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.  People were involved in their care planning which included but was not limited to assessments of the risk of falls, nutrition, cognition and skin integrity.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.  Teams within the service supported each other well. They communicated at flash meetings, making sure each department were aware of any changes in people’s care needs as well as making staff aware if someone was feeling unwell and may need extra support and monitoring. Staff also worked well with external services. Relatives told us staff supported people to access a range of health professionals such as GP, therapists, mental health teams and speech and language support.

The service supported people to manage their health and well-being to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.  The service had a team of activities staff who worked to ensure people were supported to be both physically and mentally active. The activities staff planned their activities with the people at the service. For example, people had said that they did not what to do Halloween related activities. Staff instead concentrated on autumn and bonfire night themes. Where people did not want to participate in group activities other activities were planned, such as trips into the village and the local pub. The activities staff had organised with a local library for there to be a library on site. People were asked what books they would like, and this was arranged with the library.

The service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always recognise when their quality systems and processes had not identified that outcomes and reviews were not always consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.   Some peoples care plans did not contain information to support people with specific health and social care outcomes. We were told these conditions were monitored. However, care records did not explain how they were monitored of what a good outcome would look like. Staff and leaders told us about positive outcomes, where peoples quality of life had improved during their time at the service.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. However, staff had not recognised that they needed to follow the mental capacity act (MCA) and best interest principals when considering if a person should be given medicines covertly. The registered manager had responded to feedback during the inspection regarding covert medicines and taken action to ensure staff always follow MCA. Staff recognised when delivering personal care they needed to gain consent. They did this respectfully. A staff member spoke about how they would ask people if they were happy to receive care from a staff member of the opposite gender. If people did not wish to receive care from a male or female carer, they were able to make changes and they would always facilitate a change to ensure the persons wishes were met.