Beaconville Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective- this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on the best available evidence.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating remains requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support was not always consistent and people’s mental capacity had not always been assessed following restrictive practices being put in place. The service was in continued breach of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and consent to care and treatment.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service ensured people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being and communication. People’s communication methods were outlined within their care plans. Relatives told us they felt care and support was appropriate for the person. One relative told us, “(Person’s name) care is tailored to him” and another told us, “They (Staff) read his gestures all the time as (Person’s name) is non-verbal.” The manager told us prior to a person moving into the service they would visit the person and obtain as much information they could to ensure the person would be safe living at Beaconville, and the service could meet their care and support needs.

The service did not always deliver people’s care and treatment in line with the person’s required dietary requirements. Records showed people had a speech and language therapy assessment. However, we found conflicting information within people's care plans. For example, some records recorded different-textured fluids. We spoke to staff, who also told us conflicting information, the provider could not be assured people were receiving fluids in line with their care needs, this put people at risk of choking.

Whilst we did not identify anyone who had come to harm, this contributed to the continued breach of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and governance.

Relatives told us their loved ones were receiving appropriate food and fluid following their needs, comments included “(Person’s name) has pureed food, it’s amazing. I’m jealous as the food smells nice and looks so good”. The service had made improvements in supporting people with regular repositioning, and records confirmed this.

The service worked well across teams and other services to support people. They ensured people only needed to tell their story once, by sharing records such as hospital passports, when people moved between different services. Most staff were positive about the teamwork. One staff member told us, “We have a lot of people, more staff and more working as a team- I think it is how the management have approached it, and the management now are very involved in what we are doing, and the communication is better. (Managers name) has stepped up and improved things.” Professionals working with the service were positive and told us the service makes appropriate referrals and acts on the advice given.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to support a healthier life. The manager told us people can make unwise decisions, and the service would provide them with information on the risks and support the person with their decision.

Relatives told us people living at the service had access to healthcare, inside and outside of the service. For example, in relation to accessing appointments outside of the service.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment and ensured appropriate medical advice was sought. However, the service did not always investigate unexplained injuries, to improve outcomes for people living at the service.

For example, the manager told us about an incident at the service involving a serious injury (a fracture) where an investigation into the injury had not been conducted. Once identified, the manager took immediate action to investigate and identify any lessons that needed to be learned to drive improvement.

Relatives told us about the positive experience and outcomes. One relative told us, “It’s been positive for both of us. Highest on the scale of positive.”

The service had made improvements regarding working in-line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, we found the service had not consistently sought and recorded people’s legal consent to care and treatment. Records showed mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not always in place where people had restrictions placed on them. For example, the use of bed rails, which can restrict the movement of the person.

Whilst we did not identify anyone who had come to harm, this contributed to the continued breach of regulation in relation consent to care and governance.

Mental capacity assessments included detailed information about how the service had explored all options available to involve the person in the decision and best interests decision process.

A staff member told us, “We always gain consent even down to what they will wear, options are given, and the majority of residents would be able to give us a sign of what they wanted.”