We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Beacon 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 The Beacon, you can give feedback on this service.
The Beacon is a domiciliary care provider in Newcastle supporting people with personal care in their own home. They specialise in end of life care and support. There were five people were in receipt of personal care at the time of inspection.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe and well supported by staff. Risk assessments were detailed and person-centred, meaning staff had clear instructions to support people and reduce risks.
Medicines were administered and audited in line with established best practice. Policies, procedures and staff knowledge reflected this. The registered manager assessed staff competence on a regular basis.
Record keeping and quality assurance processes were clear. The registered manager was committed to identifying ways of continually improving the service.
Processes were in place to ensure pre-employment checks took place.
Out of hours emergency arrangements were in place. There had been no missed calls and people told us staff arrived on time, stayed for the duration of the planned call and never appeared rushed.
Staff were well trained and supported to meet people’s needs confidently and effectively.
Staff liaised well with external healthcare professionals to ensure people received the help they required.
People and their relatives gave consistently positive praise about the caring and compassionate approach of staff.
People felt involved in the planning and review of their care. This was enabled through introductory meetings and regular reviews.
The service delivered end of life care and support to people who wanted to remain in their own homes. They did this tactfully and with patience. All people and relatives we spoke with praised how sensitively staff conducted themselves.
People were encouraged to maintain levels of independence by staff who had regard to their likes, dislikes and individualities.
The service was well-led by a registered manager who took personal accountability and ensured the culture was open, supportive and inclusive.
Staff consistently described the registered manager as supportive and approachable. They took pride in working for the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at lastinspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 23 July 2019)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The Beacon is a domiciliary care provider in Newcastle supporting people with personal care in their own home. They specialise in end of life care and support. There were eight people using the service at the time of inspection.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Improvements had been made to risk assessments, meaning people were safe and staff had clear instructions to support them and reduce risks.
Medicines were now managed in line with established best practice. All relevant policies and procedures had been reviewed to ensure they were in line with this practice.
The registered manager undertook regular audits of medicines records and observed practice to ensure standards were maintained.
Record keeping and quality assurance processes were now clearly embedded and understood. The registered manager was able to demonstrate where effective auditing had led to continued improvements.
Pre-employment checks, out of hours emergency arrangements and procedures for a missed call were all in place. There had been no missed calls and people told us staff arrived on time, stayed for the duration of the planned call and never appeared rushed.
The service was well-led by a registered manager who took personal accountability for making the improvements required. They had completed the actions as set out on their action plan and had in place suitable arrangements for sustaining these improvements.
Feedback about the registered manager and the culture of the service was consistently positive and people felt well supported by regular staff.
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 requires improvement (published 14 November 2018). 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 regulations.
Why we inspected
This was a focussed inspection based on the previous rating. We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe and Well-led which contain those requirements. The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those Key Questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.
The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Beacon on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This is the first time we have inspected the service.
There was a registered manager in place with suitable experience and knowledge of the service. 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 felt safe and there were risk assessments in place to ensure staff knew how to keep people safe. These were regularly reviewed and information effectively shared where risks changed. Some risk assessments would benefit from more personalised details.
Where staff administered medicines they had been appropriately trained. The majority of people who used the service self-medicated. The documentation and auditing of this aspect of medicines administration was not effective or in line with good practice and required improvement.
We have made a recommendation about the management of medicines.
All staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities and demonstrated a good understanding of the risks people faced.
No concerns were raised by relatives or external professionals, with all expressing confidence in the registered manager and the staff they had interacted with.
Rota planning was simple and effective. This information was shared routinely with staff and people who used the service. Out of hours on call arrangements were in place and there was no evidence of any missed calls. There was no clear contingency plan in place should there be a missed call; the registered manager addressed this during our inspection.
There had been no accidents, injuries or safeguarding issues since the service began providing care. The registered manager was able to tell us how they planned to document these instances and to analyse them for patterns or trends. They had not, at the time of inspection, implemented these processes.
There was consistent and effective liaison with a range of external professionals, such as nurses and social workers, to ensure people’s needs could be well met.
Staff were well supported by way of induction, shadowing and training. The registered manager could demonstrate plans for future training and supported staff to pursue career goals. Staff morale was high.
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 who used the service and relatives praised how staff respected and supported their cultural and religious beliefs.
Continuity of care was strong, with all people feeling at home with care staff and never experiencing a carer they had not been introduced to. A number of care staff spoke Bengali and/or Punjabi, meaning people who used the service, for whom these were there first languages, were able to have in depth conversations with their care staff.
Staff treated people in a dignified manner and feedback was consistently strong regarding how compassionate and patient staff were.
The registered manager planned to send surveys to people who used the service and their relatives, to help gain more feedback about what they could do better.
Care files were brief but well-ordered and logical. The registered manager made some improvements to aspects of the plans we found to be lacking in person-centred detailed. Other aspects of the care plans contained and excellent level of person-centred detail.
People’s changing needs were well met and the service excelled in providing end of life care to people in a place they were comfortable. Relatives provided strong feedback in this regard, as did external healthcare professionals who worked with the service.
All people who used the service and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and expressed confidence in the ability of the staff team to address these concerns.
The registered manager led the service well and was receptive to feedback. They were committed to ensuring the service attained compliance with the regulations and that people received a high standard of care. During the inspection they demonstrated a desire to improve aspects of the service in line with good practice.
The culture was one of respecting and valuing people’s individualities, including their religious beliefs and cultural differences. The registered manager had ensured that all staff acted in line with this approach and we found this had a positive impact on people’s wellbeing.
We found the service was in breach of regulation 17 (Good Governance).
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.