We carried out a review of the data available to us about Beaumont Nursing Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Beaumont Nursing Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Beaumont Nursing Home provides nursing care and support for up to 28 people, many who have complex care needs or were receiving end of life care. At the time of the inspection 27 people were using the service.
Accommodation is provided over the ground and first floors with various lounge and dining areas and an accessible garden.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People received safe care and support and they told us they felt safe living at Beaumont Nursing Home. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and were confident in reporting any concerns. Risks to people's safety were assessed and well managed, and people’s care plans detailed current risks and individual needs.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and people told us staff always had time to stop for a chat. The provider followed their recruitment procedures to ensure people were protected from staff that may not be fit to support them. Paperwork with employments checks was in place but was disorganised, poorly recorded and difficult to locate.
Staff received training in relation to the safe administration of medicines and their competencies were checked to ensure safe practice. Infection control measures were robustly followed, and staff had access to sufficient PPE.
People's care needs were assessed before they went to live at the service, to ensure their needs could be fully met. Staff received an induction when they first commenced work at the service and ongoing training that enabled them to have the skills and knowledge to provide effective care.
People were supported to eat and drink enough, and people were complimentary about the food. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and access healthcare services.
The premises was homely and adapted to meet the needs of people using the service.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported by kind, caring and compassionate staff that often went the extra mile to provide people with good quality care. The staff team were passionate about providing people with support that was based on their individual needs, goals, and aspirations.
An activities programme was in place, and care plans were personalised to each individual detailing their likes, dislikes and personal preferences. People and their families were involved in the care planning process as much as was possible. A complaints system was in place and was used effectively.
The service had achieved accreditation under the Gold Standard Framework (GSF). This meant the service reached quality standards that were recognised as offering a high level of palliative and end of life care for people.
The service was well managed. People, relatives, and staff were very positive about the leadership of the service and praised the management team highly. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service; actions were taken, and improvements were made when required. Staff felt well supported and said the registered manager was open and approachable. The service worked in partnership with outside agencies.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 22 February 2018)
Why we inspected
We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Beaumont Nursing Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ On arrival, visitors completed a Covid -19 risk assessment. Their temperature was recorded, and they were provided with personal protective equipment including disposable gloves, apron and masks to protect people. They were also guided to a sink area to wash their hands.
¿ People were supported to keep in regular contact with friends and family. Staff facilitated regular video calls.
¿ Managers made weekly contact with people’s relatives to keep them up to date on their wellbeing.
¿ Government guidance was followed when people returned from hospital or when there were new admissions to the service.
¿ When people were symptomatic with covid symptoms or tested positive, they were cared for in a separate area of the home to reduce cross infection. Only a small team of staff supported people in this area of the building.
¿ Staff did not work across other services to limit any risk of the spread of infection.
¿ The service actively engaged with a programme of regular testing as soon as it was available. Additionally, any new staff and any staff returning after an absence were required to take a Covid test.
¿ Robust infection control procedures were in place and additional domestic staff had been employed to meet the need of increased cleaning and deep cleaning routines.
¿ Government guidance was followed when people moved in to the service. The admissions process included an isolation period.
At the last inspection, this service was rated good. At this inspection, we found the service remained good. The inspection took place on the 10 January 2018 and was unannounced.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
People continued to be treated with empathy and kindness and their individuality was respected. The staff were friendly, caring and compassionate. Positive relationships had been developed between the people and staff.
Detailed personalised care plans were in place, which enabled staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences and choices. End of life wishes were discussed and plans put in place.
People continued to receive safe care. Staff were appropriately recruited and there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.
The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision and training that they required to work effectively in their roles. Development of staff knowledge and skills was encouraged. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.
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 home supported this practice. There was a variety of activities available for people to participate in if they wished to and family and friends were welcomed to take part in events at the home.
The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The provider was committed to developing the service and actively looked at ways to continuously improve the service. There were effective quality assurance systems and audits in place; action was taken to address any shortfalls.
People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints that they may receive.
This inspection took place on the 6 and 8 January 2016 and was unannounced.
The service is registered to provide accommodation for up to 28 older people who may require nursing care. The people living in the home have a range of needs including physical disabilities. The service provides both respite and long term care. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people living there.
The service has a 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.
There were appropriate recruitment processes in place and people felt safe in the home. Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people and knew how to respond if they had any concerns.
There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people living at the home; staffing levels were kept under review. At the time of the inspection the home was undergoing refurbishment which was needed to improve the environment for the people living there.
Staff were supported through regular supervisions and undertook training which focussed on helping them to understand the needs of the people they were supporting. People were involved in decisions about the way in which their care and support was provided. Staff understood the need to undertake specific assessments where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and / or their day to day routines. People’s health care and nutritional needs were carefully considered and relevant health care professionals were appropriately involved in people’s care.
People received care from staff that were kind, compassionate and respectful. Their needs were assessed prior to coming to the home and person centred care plans were in place and were kept under review. Staff had taken care to understand peoples likes, dislikes and past life’s and enabled people to participate in activities either within groups or on an individual basis.
People were cared for by staff who were respectful of their dignity and who demonstrated an understanding of each person’s needs. This was evident in the way staff spoke to people and the activities they engaged in with individuals. Relatives spoke positively about the care their relative received and felt that they could approach management and staff to discuss any issues or concerns they had.
There were a variety of audits in place and action was taken to address any shortfalls. Management was visible and open to feedback, actively looking at ways to improve the service. The completion of the current refurbishment programme will benefit the well-being of the people living in the home.
This is a summary of what we found.
Is the service safe?
Equipment at the home had been well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk. A senior member of staff was available on call in case of emergencies. Staff knew how to make a referral when it was necessary to lawfully deprive people of some aspects of their liberty to keep them safe.
Is the service effective?
Individual plans of care identified people's specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs which were required to meet people's individual needs. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the care and support needs of people that used the service and that they knew how people liked their care and support to be provided. Staff received training which enabled them to respond to people's requirements.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. We spoke with visiting relatives that told us the care shown to people was very good. People using the service and their relatives completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.
Is the service responsive to people's needs?
We found that activities were arranged which were suitable and enjoyed by people. We looked at how complaints had been dealt with, and found that the responses had been open, thorough, and timely. People can therefore be assured that complaints are investigated and action is taken as necessary.
Is the service well led?
Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. Audits had been completed and action plans produced when changes had been required. People had been consulted in arrangements within the home, and their views had been taken into consideration. The manager regularly worked 'on shift' with staff providing care and support to people which ensured they were aware of the needs of people that used the service.
We found people were encouraged to be as independent as possible. A visitor we spoke with said, ' My relative only came to live here recently so is settling in. But they are happy and well looked after and given dignity and respect.' Another person said, ' My relative's personal items and furniture are here. It feels like home from home.'
The provider took adequate steps to protect the people they cared for and their carers from harm.
We found that the provider had carried out checks on staff before they were employed to make sure they were fit to carry out their roles and responsibilities.
During our inspection we found the provider needed to make improvements to the environment where people were cared for. A visitor we spoke with told us, ' I am a bit concerned that the home really could do with having new carpets, curtains and decorating as it looks very run down.' We found that the provider had already identified these through their quality assurance systems, and had a programme of refurbishment to be completed by March 2014.
We saw that people's care plans were detailed and took account of people's individual needs and how this would be supported and that people were encouraged to express their views and make choices.
The provider took adequate steps to protect the people they cared for and their carers from harm. We saw that the provider had adequate quality assurance systems which made sure the safety and comfort of the people they cared for were maintained and any problems quickly resolved.
The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an expert by experience; people who have experience of using services and who can provide that perspective and a practising professional.
We spoke with seven people who used the service. One person told us, 'Staff here are more like my friends because I've known them for a long time", but another person did not know the name of a person who had supported them. That person told us, "I'm not sure of their names" and pointed to a care worker saying "I like her the best." Staff at the home did not wear name badges.
One person told us, "I'm not sure what a care plan is", but another person told us that they had been involved in their care plan and added, "I had a lengthy review with my nurse two weeks ago." Two people we spoke with told us that they felt safe living at the home.
During lunch time one person waited an excessive period of time to be served their lunch mainly because there were not enough staff on duty to attend to all residents needs at that time.