• Care Home
  • Care home

Beaconsfield Residential Care Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

13 Nelson Road, Southsea, Hampshire, PO5 2AS

Provided and run by:
Beaconsfield Care Limited

Report from 18 February 2025 assessment

On this page

Caring

Good

16 April 2025

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Kindness, compassion and dignity

Score: 3

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We received feedback from professionals who told us staff treated people with dignity and respect. People told us staff were mostly friendly and always treated them with kindness. Relatives told us staff were kind and understanding and treated people well. We observed staff treating people with kindness and observed staff had a good rapport with people.

People were supported to have visitors who could visit people privately in their rooms. There was also a garden space where people could meet.

Treating people as individuals

Score: 2

The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. For example, 1 person told us how they disliked the service, this had not been captured in their care plan. Another person told us of their aspirations to go on holiday, this had not been captured in their care plan.

There was some evidence people had been involved in their care plans and some choices and preferences were evident. For example, there was a positive example in 1 person’s care plan which guided staff to offer a person the opportunity to make phone calls to relatives when they had run out of credit on their mobile phone. Other care plans detailed how people preferred staff to contact them, 1 person liked staff to identify their name before entering their room, another person liked staff to call their name because they didn’t like staff to knock on their door.

For autistic people or people with a learning disability their individual goals, aspirations and relationship desires were not clearly identified or understood.

Independence, choice and control

Score: 3

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. For example, each person had a key to their own room which they could keep locked if they preferred. Most people were able to go out on their own, chose when to eat and had a choice of 2 meal options for each meal.

Where people chose to self-isolate there was no structured support in place to support and encourage people to partake in meaningful activities outside of their bedroom. The manager told us this is something they would look into for these people.

Responding to people’s immediate needs

Score: 3

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed staff responding positively to a person who was at a heightened state of anxiety. We observed staff interactions with people, it was clear they knew people well and responded to their immediate needs with kindness and compassion.

Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Score: 3

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff were positive about the support they received and felt they could share work and personal concerns with leaders.

Team meetings took place 4 to 5 monthly with day and night staff. Staff had the opportunity to give their feedback in these meetings. The manager held a meeting in December 2024 with the medicines trained staff to talk about safe administration of medicines. Other topic specific meetings took place in October and September 2024.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and that the leadership team were supportive. One staff member told us team meetings took place to discuss specific matters, they told us, “They help all staff to understand more about the home and the progression tasks and goals that are outlined and followed accordingly, staff awareness and morale improves as we have a strong team that is always building.”