The Beeches (The Drive)

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

The culture of the service was not entirely person centred as we observed occasions where people's privacy, dignity and the language used was not always respectful and people were not listened to by staff. Care plans were not always put together in a person-centred way and did not reflect the views of those receiving care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We spoke to an advocate of a person who used the service, they told us, “The Beeches is person centred in its approach to an individual who I represented. They gave them responsibility and used gestures etc to help them communicate. The GP had prescribed a mood-altering drug for the individual, there had to be a DoLS review. The home was active in ensuring this was completed.”

We did not find that staff were always caring. We observed a staff member telling a person supported to ‘sit down’ in an undignified way. We also saw another staff member supporting a person in the bath whilst the bathroom door was open which meant the person’s dignity and privacy could not be maintained. This was discussed with the registered manager who assured us they would address this with the staff concerned.

We saw evidence that culture and values featured as part of staff induction. This included ‘living the values’ which covered dignity, privacy, choice independence and rights.

People told us that if they felt worried, they could talk to the staff. A person told us they liked the staff and that they thought the staff were good. We spoke to families of the people who live at The Beeches. They told us that staff were caring and, in their view, things are under control with the right balance of support within the home. They mentioned how staff planned for holidays, birthdays and other celebrations and how they were informed about these when they happened.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

During the assessment, one of the inspectors asked a person who used the service a question to which a staff member interrupted and answered the question even though the person supported was able to answer themselves. We also observed a staff member turning on the lounge room light and a person becoming distressed with this, wanting the light turned off. Another person living at the home stood up and turned off the light and stated that, ‘he does not like the light on’ which the member of staff ignored. We did not find that people were always given choice. We observed bowls of cereal prepared in readiness for when people got up despite there being alternatives to choose from. We also observed a large plastic jug of tea which had been prepared for everyone which meant that people were unable to choose an alternative or make their own drink. A person did ask for a different cereal but still received the one that was already prepared in a bowl.

A person mentioned that they were able to make decisions about their care and how they would like to be supported and that they were supported to be independent. Another person told us, “I go out to the shops and to the pub by myself, I also have a job too.” A third person said that they would like to learn to cook. They told us that staff do the cooking, but they would like to attend classes to learn how to cook for themselves.

Staff told us they promoted people’s independence and involved people with decisions when supporting them. For example, a member of staff said, “I encourage people to carry out tasks if they are able to do this themselves.” During our visit we were informed that a person received 12 hours of 1-to-1 support during the day. We did not see evidence that the 12 hours of support were being utilised in a way that would benefit the person the hours were intended for. We discussed this with the registered manager during our visit.

Staff encouraged people to maintain their independence although this was not always consistent as mentioned above. They knew how much each person was able to do for themselves and what assistance they needed. At the time of the assessment the service did not use assistive technology. However, the registered manager was clear on how to complete referrals to the local authority if they identified people would benefit from such equipment. We saw records about people were not always kept securely as we found some confidential records in an unlocked shed.

Staff did not always treat people with respect or always show them dignity and privacy when supporting them. We observed that staff did not always respond to people’s immediate needs. We witnessed poor and at times complete lack of interaction between staff and the people living in the home.

Staff monitored people's health and welfare and reported any concerns to the management team who made referrals to health care professionals where required. People’s needs were kept under review and advice was sought from external care professionals, when appropriate. The service had an effective working relationship with a number of health care professionals to ensure that people received co-ordinated care and support. Any advice or treatment from healthcare professionals were incorporated in people’s care records.

Although staff were aware of the wishes and preferences of people, these were not always promoted. People were not always encouraged to exercise choices on how they wanted to be supported, for example, what they would like to eat or drink.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.