Archived: Beaumont House

Updated 26 February 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors, and assistant inspector and one Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

This service provides care and support to people living in specialist 'extra care' housing. People using the service are older people, some with dementia, or mental health support needs. The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 48 hours' notice of the inspection visit because staff are often out of the office providing care and we needed to be sure that they would be available to speak with us. We also needed to ensure people's consent was gained for us to contact them for feedback about the service.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed the information we held on the service. This included the Provider Information Return (PIR). Providers are required to send us key information about the service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. The information helps support our inspections. We also reviewed notifications received from the provider about incidents or accidents which they are required to send us by law. We sought feedback from professionals who work with the service. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We visited the service on 13 January 2020. The registered manager was absent on the first day of our inspection, so the lead inspector arranged a follow up visit on 23 January 2020. Prior to the second visit we were advised the registered manager had resigned their position. We spoke to the providers Head of Senior Living, the general manager of Beaumont House and the peripatetic manager, who was covering for the registered manager. These managers are referred to in the report as ‘the management team’. We also spoke with one health and social care professional, two care coordinators, six care staff and four people receiving support from the service. The Expert by Experience made telephone calls to an additional seven people receiving support from the service and five relatives.

We reviewed a range of records, including four people's care records and medication records. We looked at records relating to the management of the service, including staff files and quality audits.

After the inspection

The management team sent us information which we had requested. We contacted further health and social care professionals for their feedback about the service.

Updated 26 February 2020

About the service

Beaumont House is registered to provide personal care to people living in specialist 'extra care' housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single households in a shared site or building. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection only looked at people's personal care service.

Beaumont House provides rented accommodation in 47 one-bedroom flats and 13 two-bedroom flats. There is a communal lounge and dining area on the ground floor that people can use if they wish. At the time of our inspection, there were 55 people living at Beaumont House, of which 48 people were receiving personal care

People's experience of using this service

At the last inspection, we found there was a breach of regulation because poor management meant people could not be confident they would receive safe, good quality care. Managers and care staff did not communicate and work well as a team, resulting in a negative, unsettled atmosphere.

At this inspection we found the provider had taken action to address our concerns and the service was no longer in breach.

However, the provider needed more time to implement their action plan, as some improvements, such as new care plans and staff training were still being rolled out. The registered manager had helped introduce many of the changes since our last visit. However, their resignation during our inspection reflected our concerns that management of the service continued to be a challenge.

Despite recent management changes, everyone we spoke to told us the atmosphere at Beaumont House was more positive. There was a shared focus on the needs of the people being supported.

Communication had improved. People, families and staff were being encouraged to speak out, though further work was needed by the provider to ensure everyone felt able to speak openly.

The provider had strengthened the monitoring of the service, learnt from mistakes and acted when needed to promote safety and good quality care.

The provider had taken effective action to address our previous concerns around safety. Staff managed risk well and worked as a team to keep people safe. In particular, the provider had significantly improved the administration of medicine. Staff worked openly with outside agencies to safeguard people.

There were enough safely recruited staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. The provider continued to tackle recruitment and retention issues and had started to see a reduction in agency staffing.

Staff knew people well and understood their needs and preferences. The provider had responded to previous concerns about staff knowledge and had focused on developing the specialist skills required in the care of people with more complex needs. Senior staff provided care staff with effective guidance and support. Risk assessments and care plans were being amended to ensure they reflected people’s needs more fully.

Staff worked in partnership with other agencies to promote peoples’ health and wellbeing.

There was an improved understanding about the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). 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 and families spoken with told us staff were caring and had remained committed through all the changes at the service. Staff were passionate about ensuring people remained independent and in control of their service.

More information is in Detailed Findings below

Rating at last inspection and update:

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published18 January 2019) and there was a breach of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.