Beau House

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

Staff completed a comprehensive assessment of each person’s support needs. People had care and support plans that were personalised, holistic, strengths-based and reflected their needs and aspirations, included physical and mental health needs. Care plans reflected a good understanding of people’s needs, including relevant assessments of people’s communication support and sensory needs. People were supported by staff who had received relevant training. This included training in the wide range of strengths and impairments people with a learning disability and or autistic people may have, mental health needs, communication tools, positive behaviour support, and all restrictive interventions. Staff empowered people to make their own decisions about their care and support.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives confirmed they were involved in discussions and reviews with staff and the management team regarding the care and support provided. Comments included, "We were involved as a family when the support plan was first developed." "[Registered manager] keeps me involved" and "I like talking to the staff about my support but I'm not interested in what's written down."

The registered manager and staff knew people well; their preferred routines, the support they needed with their physical and emotional well-being and how to communicate in the best way with them.

Staff completed a comprehensive assessment of each person’s need before admission. Care plans reflected a good understanding of people’s needs, including relevant assessments of people’s communication support and sensory needs. People’s care had been developed in collaboration with family, social worker and staff. Wherever possible, people were involved in their care planning and staff ensured their choices were respected.

We asked people and relatives about mealtimes, food and drink offer, and received a mixed response. The supported individuals we spoke with were clear they wanted to maximise their personal choice and control at mealtimes and in their food and drink choices. Comments included, "I like going out to the pub for food", "I enjoy takeaways but would maybe like to cook more in the house", and "I like to choose what I eat and drink. I don't really like being told what to do." Conversely, some relatives felt their loved ones were not always supported in a way that supported good nutrition. Comments included, "[Staff] try to offer him a variety of foods, but we are not sure that he has. He has a lot of meal deals. There is no weekly plan for his meals. I want him to do more, and he needs encouragement with this" and "He used to do cooking and enjoyed it. He doesn't want to do it now as they [staff] don't encourage him."

The provider and registered manager described at length their committed to person-centred, evidence-based support at Beau House. Assurances were given following our feedback on the mealtime experience and access to an improved healthy options offer.

The provider took account of best practice guidance. There were also processes in place to involve specialist professionals in service delivery to ensure staff were supporting people in line with best practice guidance.

During the assessment process we identified a specific issue in relation to communication and information sharing between Beau House the local GP practice. The provider and registered manager had misinterpreted the legal framework that allowed for information to be shared between agencies. Beau House had been using a subject access request framework to obtain health related information from the GP. During the assessment we liaised extensively with the GP practice and Beau House. The GP practice were clear they had a lot of experience in dealing with care homes, and were not clear why Beau House had used subject access requests. Appropriate advice and guidance was sought and at the time of this assessment report, an improved professional working relationship had been established between Beau House and the GP.

Health professionals working with the service said there was good team working. They said communication was good and staff took on board advice and suggestions to ensure people’s health and care needs were met.

Systems were in place to ensure the staff team worked together to meet people’s needs. This included liaising with health and social care professionals when appropriate.

We asked people and relatives about access to routine health appointments. Comments included, "The staff support me if I need to go to the doctors", and "[Person] has [medical issue] with his bowels, and they inform the GP about any problems. He hasn't seen a dentist recently though."

Staff worked well with other services and professionals to prevent readmission or admission to hospital. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit people. They supported each other to make sure people had no gaps in their care.

People had health actions plans/health passports which were used by health and social care professionals to support them in the way they needed. People were supported to attend annual health checks, screening and primary care services

Before moving into Beau House, some people had spent extended periods of time living in what would now be considered institutional type settings. We heard from people about the positive impact they had felt since moving into their new home. Comments included, "I like my freedom now and being able to chose for myself" and "I still need help from staff but I can go out and enjoy myself more now."

The service routinely monitored people’s care and support to continuously improve it. They sought to ensure outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both professional expectations and the expectations of people themselves. There were ongoing updates documented in people’s care plans each time they had attended an appointment and the outcome of these. People had consented to this information being recorded.

At the time of this assessment the provider had commenced a systematic review of processes that best supported achieving evidence-based outcomes. For example, a bench marking exercise was ongoing to evaluate outcomes against CQC's quality of life tool.

Staff supported people to make their own decisions about their care and support. Staff knew about people’s capacity to make decisions through verbal or non-verbal means and this was documented.

Managers and staff had received Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training and were aware of their duties and responsibilities in relation to the MCA and DoLS.

The registered manager demonstrated best practice around assessing mental capacity, supporting decision-making and best interest decision-making.