Beechwood Residential 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

People’s needs were assessed by the provider and people and their relatives were involved in the assessment process. However, it was not clear what they system was for reviewing people’s needs as they changed over time. People were able to consent to their care where they had the capacity to do so. Where they lacked the capacity, the provider followed appropriate processes to make decisions in people’s best interests.

This service scored 21 (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 told us how they were involved in assessing the person’s needs. A relative told us, “We have a formal review once a year, me and [person] are always involved. We talk about [person’s] progress, developments, food, exercise, health, next steps.”

The Manager told us since commencing employment in January 2024 she had not carried out a full review of people’s care plans but had dated and signed the front cover of the plans. We discussed with the Manager the frequency of when care plans needed reviewing. We said frequent reviews were necessary and signing and dating the front page did not constitute a proper review of the document. Staff told us that some of the people living in the home did not use speech as their preferred way of communicating. They told us that by knowing them well they are able to make an on the spot assessment of what the person is trying to communicate to them. We received feedback from a healthcare professional who told us that, “Staff appear aware of their needs and are able to answer and provide information that I request.”

We saw the providers policy about how they assessed people who were referred to the home. The policy stated the importance of identifying outcomes for people in terms of the care they needed and the things they wanted to with their lives. The providers policy also stated the necessity of making sure all voices were heard, particularly for those people who could not express their own views. We saw care plans belonging to the people living in the home. Care plans included information around areas such as behaviour, activities, communication and religion. A hospital passport was also completed in each person’s record, which set out the support the person would need from hospital staff in the event of them being admitted to hospital. These had been reviewed by the Manager who had dated and signed the front of the plan. We felt the process for reviewing the plans and assessing people’s needs was not robust enough.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People were able to consent to care where possible. Relatives told us how people received the care and support they wanted. For example religion was important to one person, and their relative told us, “They go to church every Sunday, I’m really happy about that.” We observed people being asked for consent prior to care being given care.

The Manager told us people consented to care routines and day to day support on daily basis and were able to describe how they sought people’s permission. Staff told us when decisions affecting a person’s health and welfare were required, they involved family and advocacy services in this process. Staff told us how they asked people about the support they needed before proceeding with the help they required. They told us that they needed to gain consent for everything and gave us an example of a person taking their medication. The staff were able to tell us about the important principles of the Mental Capacity Act demonstrating they understood the legislation.

Processes at the service promoted people’s right to consent to their care where they had the capacity to do so. Mental Capacity Assessments were undertaken to determine if people had the capacity to consent, for example, to taking medicines or receiving support with personal care. Where people lacked capacity, then best interest decisions were taken about these issues. The provider has a policy on Consent to help guide practice in this area.