Beech Court Care Home

Updated 24 February 2022

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.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice is safe and that services are compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 28 January 2022 and was announced. We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice of the inspection.

Updated 24 February 2022

We inspected Beech Court Care Home on the 18 October 2018, the visit was unannounced. Beech Court Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Beech Court Care Home is registered for 23 people in one adapted building. On the day of our inspection, 13 people were living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post who was available throughout the inspection. 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.

At our last inspection the provider was found to be in breach of two regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014. During this inspection we found the provider had made improvements and was no longer in breach of these regulations.

People at the service were protected from the risk of abuse, as the staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to keeping people safe. There were established procedures and protocols in place to guide staff should they suspect abuse, and the registered manager dealt with any safeguarding incidences thoroughly. The registered manager had processes in place to ensure learning from safeguarding incidents took place to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

The risks to people’s safety were assessed, and measures to reduce risks were in place to protect people from harm. However, one care plan we viewed lacked information and guidance on a specific area of care. Following our inspection, the registered manager sent us information to show how they had addressed this, and what measures were in place to prevent reoccurrence of this oversight. There were enough staff to meet the needs of the people at the service, and the registered manager regularly reviewed staffing levels to ensure sufficient staff were available to support people. Safe recruitment practices were in place.

Overall, the management of people’s medicines was safe. However, we found some minor concerns, following our inspection, the registered manager sent us information to show how they had addressed this. People were protected from the risks of cross infection, as staff undertook safe practices in relation to infection prevention, and the provider had addressed concerns over adequate hand washing facilities that had been highlighted during the inspection.

People’s needs were assessed using nationally recognised assessment tools and staff supporting people received adequate training to guide them in their roles.

People’s nutritional needs were well managed and people received diets appropriate to their needs. People’s health needs were supported by staff who worked with the relevant health professionals to manage this. People lived in an environment that met their needs.

Staff sought consent from people before caring for them and they understood and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA). 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 were supported by a caring group of staff who listened to their views and ensured their choices and preferences were met. People received person centred individualised care. They were treated with dignity and respect, and staff supported their independence.

People were supported to join in with several social activities provided by the service. Their concerns and complaints were dealt with in line with the providers complaints policy.

People were supported at the end of their life by staff who were aware of their preferences, and their needs and wishes were respected.

Although we saw there had been improvements in the quality monitoring at the service, further improvements were needed to continue to improve the quality of the service. The registered manager was visible and supportive towards people, their relatives and the staff who worked at the service. The registered manager responded positively to changes and used information to improve the service and care people received.