Archived: Beaumont College

Updated 16 July 2015

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, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection team consisted of a lead inspector, a second inspector, two specialist professional advisors and an expert by experience. The expert by experience is someone who had used health and social care services for people with learning and physical disabilities. The specialist advisors had expert knowledge of young people with a learning or physical disability.

The inspection remit was to inspect the regulated activities they were registered for. ‘Accommodation and nursing care in the further education sector and Personal care’.

This was an unannounced inspection undertaken on the 30 September 2014. The visit was carried during the day time period when most people were in education classes.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Before our inspection, we reviewed the information included in the PIR along with information we held about the college. This included notifications, any complaints or safeguarding issues. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

On the day of our visit we spoke with the registered manager, senior management, Professional health care people employed at the service, care and housekeeping staff. We also spoke with visiting relatives and people/students who lived at the college. We had responses from external agencies including social services and the contracts and commissioning team. The comments from these agencies were all positive about the care and support provided by the service. The commissioning team had no issues or concerns that required their involvement or investigation.

We looked at a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. This included care plans, staff training records, staff rotas and documents in respect of the services quality assurance systems.

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

Updated 16 July 2015

This was an unannounced inspection on the 30 September 2014.

Beaumont College and Scope Inclusion North West offers both residential and day programmes to students at the College. The students are aged between 18 and 25 with a broad range of physical and learning disabilities.

The service was last inspected in January 2014, they met the requirements of the regulations we looked at during that 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 and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

All staff members we spoke with were positive about their work with the students and how care and support was provided to the people who lived at the college. They all said they were well supported by the management team. Comments from staff included, “Fantastic manager you can approach him at any time of the day or night if you have an issue.” Also, “Cannot fault the support and care given by everyone.”

Each person who lived at the college had an allocated member of staff known as a keyworker. This enabled the students and their families to have a named person who worked with them closely to ensure care and support was provided as determined by the person and their families. One student said, “It’s really helpful to have good staff around.” Care records of people told us if their needs changed their care plans would be reassessed and updated to ensure they received the support they needed. People who lived at the college told us they were involved in decisions about their care and were supported by staff to make choices as part of their daily life.

We found that staff were well supported to carry out their role and had regular formal supervision meetings with their line manager. These sessions included a personal development plan (PDP) meeting. This enabled staff to discuss any training or additional support they may need to continue their personal development and improve the service.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We discussed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), with the registered manager. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) is legislation designed to protect people who are unable to make decisions for themselves and to ensure that any decisions are made in people’s best interests. (DoLS) are part of this legislation and ensures where someone may be deprived of their liberty, the least restrictive option is taken.

The registered manager demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the legislation as laid down by the Mental Capacity Act and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We found they were up to date with current guidance and how it relates to their service.

We discussed with staff and the management team how the service was being staffed and looked at staff training. All staff we spoke with said there was enough staff around to provide support and spend as much time as needed with people on a one to one basis. One staff member said, “We are fortunate to have access to a range of staff with different skills. We are able to spend time with students on a one to one basis.” All staff told us access to training was very good and the management team constantly arranged training to support staff in their roles.

We observed in every classroom that we went into, a ratio of at least one staff member to two students with complex needs and in some cases it was individual support. The staff ratios are based on the assessed student need, additional staff can be called on where needed

Suitable arrangements were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. People told us they felt safe. The service had safeguards in place for people who may be unable to make decisions about their care and support. The provider had developed a booklet, ‘Safeguarding Complaints Information’ This document was in picture format and explained the processes to follow should students wish to raise a concern. One student said, “It certainly explains what to do if I wanted to report any abuse.”

During the inspection visit we saw examples of where the registered manager and staff had tried innovative methods to offer practical solutions to meet people’s needs. Students told us they were consistently involved in making decisions about all areas of their support. Comments included, “All the staff are really good at keeping us up to date with what’s happening at the college. Also, “A great place to be.”

Documentation we looked at and discussions with the management team found there to be systems and processes in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided. The registered manager and provider consistently assessed, audited and monitored the quality of care and support provided to the students. Independent achievement awards had been awarded to the service for the outstanding performance of the service.

Quality assurance systems involved all people who had a contribution in developing the service. For example student surveys were conducted annually. These were analysed by the registered manager and any negative comments that required attention would be acted upon. All surveys that we saw contained wholly positive comments. One comment included, “A truly excellent place so glad I came here.”