Beacon House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect. At our last inspection we rated this key question Outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant although people's independence was promoted, they know their rights and had choice over their own care, treatment and staff told us they felt supported, the provider failed to evidence and demonstrate how staff and relatives were able to provide feedback and how this was used to improve the service and drive improvements.

This service scored 85 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

Staff spoken with were aware of people’s likes, dislikes and preferences relating to social activities. Staff were aware of people’s different communication needs and were able to describe how they promote people to make meaningful choices and be independent if this was their choice. Although when we looked at a person’s care plan it recorded the person used pictorial photographs, objects of reference and some basic Makaton signs to help them effectively communicate with staff and others, feedback from staff told us there were no specific objects of reference or basic Makaton signs used by them.

Staff spoken with were aware of people’s likes, dislikes and preferences relating to social activities. Staff were aware of people’s different communication needs and were able to describe how they promote people to make meaningful choices and be independent if this was their choice. Although when we looked at a person’s care plan it recorded the person used pictorial photographs, objects of reference and some basic Makaton signs to help them effectively communicate with staff and others, feedback from staff told us there were no specific objects of reference or basic Makaton signs used by them. Pictorial cards were available, but it was unclear which specific ones were being used on a day-to-day basis.

People were supported to maintain relationships with others. One person told us their NOK visited every couple of weeks and they spoke regularly to them on the telephone. One person had a befriender via Mencap who staff told us periodically visited the service. People made choices over their care and the support they received, and staff promoted people’s independence and choice. People told us about what they liked and chose to do. For example, one person told us they were independent with most aspects of their personal care needs without support but said they know if they needed help at any time staff were there to help and support them. They told us although they rarely liked to go out, they enjoyed doing all in-house activities. Another person told us, they like to go out to visit the local shops to buy items of their choosing and to stop by and look at places of interest to them. We observed people participating in their chosen activities on both days of our inspection. These activities including playing games, doing puzzles, knitting and listening to music. People were supported to access the community either by public transport or going for walks.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

The provider failed to demonstrate how they provided staff with the opportunity to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service or staff experience. We asked the registered manager to provide us with the most recent relative and staff surveys which had been carried out and were told they were unable to locate these and that new surveys were in the process of being sent out. While staff told us they felt supported, staff had not received regular formal supervision in line with the providers expectations. The registered manager stated staff were expected to receive 4 formal supervisions per annum. Staff files for 2 members of staff employed longer than 12 months were also viewed. The records showed evidence of either no formal supervision having been undertaken and for 1 member of staff their last supervision was back in June 2023. Neither member of staff had evidence of having received an annual appraisal in the last 12 months.