Beacon House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The registered manager worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Staff took time to get to know people and how best to support their needs. People, their relatives and other professionals were involved in sharing information on how to best support people as individuals. This included being able to support people if they showed signs of distress or frustration. Staff understood people’s risk and knew how to manage their needs safely. One person said, “I do like living here I feel safe.”

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The registered manager made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. There was a small staff team at the service that spent time getting to know people and understood their support needs. Where agency staff were used, they were regular to the service and could work as part of the team. Agency staff records were kept so that the registered manager was assured they were up to date with training and suitable to work at the service. Staffing numbers were determined on the level of support people required. Since the last assessment there had been changes in some senior staff and the provider had supported staff to make improvements at the service. There was better oversight of staff training and staff were supported to develop their skills. Staff were enabled to complete the care certificate. This is a nationally recognised set of training standards all staff should have when working in care. Staff had completed specialist training to work with people with a learning disability and autism. The registered manager had developed a template for supervision of staff. This included prompts to discuss, safeguarding, right support, right care, right culture, and staff training and support needs. Staff told us they felt they received enough training and were enabled to work with people safely. One member of staff said, “If I raise concerns the managers sits down and listens to what these are and supports you.”

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The registered manager made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Staff had received training in medicine management and had their competency to administer medicines checked. If medicine errors occurred staff were retrained and had their competency rechecked.

Medicine administration charts were in good order and staff had all the information they needed to administer medicines safely. The service followed the principles of ‘STOMP’ this is a program to stop over medicating people with a learning disability. STOMP was discussed with staff during supervisions and if a person may be displaying behaviours of distress staff had protocols to follow before offering as and when required medicine (PRN). This included getting authorisation from a senior member of staff.