Archived: Beaumaris Court Care Home

The service did not previously have 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. We found the service had appointed a registered manager.

At the last inspection we found further improvements were required to ensure sufficient staffing. During this inspection we found some improvements to staffing levels had been made and the provider continued to actively recruit staff.

At the last inspection the provider had not fully developed their quality assurance processes. During this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was continuing to develop these processes.

Beaumaris Court Care Home provides accommodation, personal and nursing care for up to 30 older people. At the time of our inspection the registered manager told us there were 26 people living at the location.

At the time of this inspection the provider was in administration and the management of the service was being overseen by another provider.

People told us they felt safe. We looked at people’s care records and saw that people had detailed risk assessments and plans in pace to manage risks in order to keep people safe. However, we found inconsistencies in the recording of care and support activities such as repositioning people where there were concerns relating to fragile skin. Records did not always reflect the needs of risk and this meant that there was a risk that people were not receiving appropriate care.

People received their medicines as prescribed and were given medicines by staff who were suitably trained. People’s medicines were stored safely and at the recommended temperatures.

People received care and support from a suitably trained staff team who had been recruited safely. Staff were subject to regular spot checks to ensure that they were competent to provide care. The registered manager had systems and processes in place to ensure that staff were kept up to date with their core training.

People were asked for their consent to care and support and the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being followed. Staff had a good understanding of the MCA but were not always aware of which people were subject to a DoLs.

People enjoyed the food available to them and were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink. Mealtimes appeared to be enjoyable and flexible and people had a choice of what they ate and drank. People’s specific dietary needs were catered for and specialist professional advice was being followed.

People were supported to access healthcare services when they needed to. People were supported by a staff team who were able to recognise changes in people’s health and well-being and knew how to report and respond to any changes.

People were supported by a staff team who showed kindness and compassion. People were supported to make decisions about how their care and support was provided. People were also supported to make decisions about how they spent their leisure time. People had choice and control over how they lived their lives.

People were treated with dignity and respect. The location had a dedicated dignity champion who delivered dignity awareness training sessions to staff. This member of staff also completed spot checks on staff’s ability to deliver care and support to people in a dignified way. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.

People and their relatives told us they did not feel actively involved in the planning and review of care. The registered manager told us that they had recently implemented a new scheme to try to improve this area of practice. We looked at records which confirmed that work in this area had commenced, however it was too early to establish the effectiveness of this.

People were supported to take part in a range of activities which they enjoyed. The provider employed a dedicated activities co-ordinator. People told us they were able to engage in a range of activities and relatives told us they were able to take part when they liked.

People were supported by a staff team who knew peoples care and support needs well and had an understanding of people’s likes and dislikes.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and felt confident that complaints would be effectively managed. We looked at complaint records and saw complaints were logged, responses recorded and actions taken to improve practices had been documented.

People liked living at the home. People, relatives and staff felt involved in the development of the service. People and their relatives knew who the registered manager was and staff felt supported by the registered manager.

The registered manager had systems and processes in place to monitor and analyse the quality of the service, and they used information from quality checks to drive improvement.

One inspector and one inspection manager carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

As part of this inspection we spoke with five people who used the service, two relatives, eight staff and two operations managers. We also reviewed records which related to the care of people. The registered manager was not present at our inspection.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Beaumaris Court Care Home.

Risks to people had been identified and plans were in place for staff to follow to reduce any risks to individual people.

Some people told us their needs were not always met because staff were often rushed.

We were told by one staff that we had picked a 'good' day to do our inspection because they weren't always this well staffed'.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. No applications had been submitted by the provider since our last inspection. When we spoke with staff not all of them had a good understanding of what this meant. However, all staff understood the importance of people being supported to make their own decisions in relation to their care and treatment.

Is the service effective?

People's health and support needs had been assessed before care was provided. Staff showed a good understanding of how to respond to people's support needs.

When we spoke with people, relatives and staff we found the delivery of care did not always meet people's individual needs because there were not always sufficient staff working at all times. One person told us, 'The staff are rushed but good. Sometimes I don't get dried properly because they have to help others'.

We saw evidence that the provider worked closely with other health professionals to ensure there was a joined up approach to meeting people's care.

Is the service caring?

All the people we spoke with told us the staff were caring and treated them with dignity, privacy and respect.

One relative told us, 'Please make it clear that the staff are good, they care'.

We saw numerous examples of the staff being kind and thoughtful in the way they helped people.

Is the service responsive?

Activities were provided for people which were relevant to them. Some people we spoke with talked about the different activities they took part in and enjoyed. This included church services, news discussions, painting and exercise to music.

Most staff told us how they had raised their concerns about the way in which staff were deployed in the home. They felt it detracted from the care of the people in the home. The provider was aware of this and had made attempts to recruit new staff, particularly in the kitchen.

Is the service well led?

Most staff told us they had reported their concerns about low staffing levels to the registered manager but nothing had changed.

The provider's senior managers were aware the kitchen was under staffed and care staff were working there on occasion. This had an impact on the delivery of care to people because staff were taken away from their caring responsibilities to work in the kitchen.

By law the provider must notify CQC of certain events, these are called statutory notifications. CQC was informed by the local authority of two people who developed pressure areas which were classed as Grade 3. No statutory notification was received from the provider.

People told us that they felt able to raise any issues with the manager or staff should they have any concerns. Staff spoke of their awareness of how to keep people safe from harm. Staff told us about the training that the home had arranged for them to attend so that they would recognise abuse and how to report it.

People told us that staff were always available when they needed help. They said that the staff were friendly and always acted professionally. One person said, 'It's very pleasant here' and another said, 'They are a good bunch of staff'.

The provider had developed a system whereby they can monitor how well the home was meeting the needs of the people who live there.

Staff provided health and social care support well. Community services were accessed to support people when necessary.

People told us that they felt able to raise any issues with the manager or staff should they have any concerns. Staff spoke of their awareness of how to keep people safe from harm. Staff told us about the training that the home had arranged for them to attend so that they would recognise abuse and how to report it.

People told us that staff were always available when they needed help. People's relatives told us that staff were around and available to talk to when they visited. They said that the staff were friendly and always acted professionally. One person said 'I can honestly say I am very, very happy here' and another said 'A lovely home'.

People we spoke with said their comments were listened to. A visitor said that they would not hesitate to talk to staff if something was wrong. The home's management held regular meetings with the people who use the service to find out what people thought about how their care was delivered.