We carried out a review of the data available to us about Beaumont Village 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 Village, you can give feedback on this service.
This inspection took place on 18 October 2017 and was announced. It was the first inspection of the service since it registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 September 2016. Beaumont Village is an extra care service providing support to people living in apartments and bungalows within the grounds of the village complex. The service operates from an office within the village. At the time of the inspection they provided personal care to 21 people.
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.
Recruitment procedures helped to ensure suitable staff were employed at the service. Appropriate recruitment checks were carried out. However, the provider had not gained a full employment history for all staff and was therefore unable to identify and check for gaps in employment history. This had not had an impact on people and the registered manager took immediate action to rectify this when it was pointed out to them.
People were safe and well cared for. They were involved in planning and reviewing their care. Staff sought consent before they provided care and support. People felt staff treated them with respect and dignity. Staff had received training in safeguarding people and understood their responsibilities to protect people and report any concerns. They were confident any issues reported regarding people’s safety were dealt with promptly by the registered manager.
Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines when they required them. Communication in the service was efficient and staff were promptly provided with up to date information concerning people’s care. When necessary staff contacted healthcare professionals to seek advice regarding people’s well-being.
Staff received an effective induction and ongoing training. They received support through one to one supervision meetings and annual appraisals were planned. The registered manager was praised for their support and staff acknowledged there was an open door policy. People too, commented on how the registered manager’s door was always open if they wished to speak with her.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. We were told staff were caring and respectful and they preserved dignity and privacy when supporting people. People were helped to remain as independent as they wished to be and the service aimed to enable people to stay in their own home for as long as they wanted. People were able to discuss their wishes regarding the care they would like to receive at the end of their lives.
Attention was paid to people’s diversity and they were assisted to meet their cultural and spiritual needs. 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 service supported this practice.
People’s views on the service were sought, they felt they were listened to and acted upon. Complaints were investigated and responded to in accordance with the provider’s policy.
Regular monitoring of the service helped to maintain and improve the quality of the service. Links with the local community were fostered and people were helped to avoid the negative effects of social isolation.