Beck House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People received person centred care from a group of staff who knew people well. People's care plans were person centred and they set out the type of care and support each person required and their induvial personalities were described. People's communication needs were known and understood by staff. People’s relatives felt listened to by staff and involved in making decisions about their care. The service worked closely with other health and social care professionals to provide a consistent service that was tailored to individual needs and preferences. People were able to access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected characteristics, when they needed it.

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 received personalised care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. Relatives told us people were supported in an individualised way by staff who knew people’s likes and dislikes. One relative said, “If (person) doesn’t want to get up for their meal, they bring in a little table to eat their food.” Another relative told us staff knew their loved one’s likes and dislikes and said, “Yes and for (person) who is non-verbal, staff know by facial expressions, they know their moods.”

Staff understood what person-centred care meant and knew people’s preferred routines and activities well. Where people were unable to verbally tell staff what they liked staff told us how they involved the person. One staff member told us they “give choices, see what they (person) prefer.” Another staff member said they, “Provide encouragement for people to be as independent as they can.”

People were supported by staff in a kind and caring way and in line with their preferences. For example, people could wake up when they wished and adjustments were made to activities to reflect this, for example we were told one resident had a planned activity “in the afternoon as they don’t like mornings”. People’s independence and choice making was encouraged, for example tasks were broken down for people using language and gestures the person could understand. Where people required support to eat and drink this were provided at people’s own pace and they were not rushed. The home’s atmosphere was relaxed, and people’s bedrooms were personalised.

People's care and treatment was well coordinated between the service and healthcare professionals. Relatives told us people received timely access to healthcare. One relative said, “Yes, [Name of person] sees the dentist and doctor and has special boots and is well looked after.” Another relative said “[Name of person] sees the wheelchair specialist and goes to hospital appointments with staff.”

Staff and the management team knew who to contact to make sure people received the right support. Staff told us health professionals such as speech and language therapists (SALT) visited people at the service. When people had specific guidelines in place for example when they followed a modified diet or used specific equipment staff were aware and confident to support people. One staff member said, “We have all been trained.” Another staff member told us a physiotherapist was training staff to use a person’s specific equipment correctly.

We observed a speech and language therapist visiting a person at the service, they told us staff provided them with clear information to support their visit. However, another health professional told us sometimes different staff can provide different information about a person, so they try and speak to the same member of staff for continuity.

A health professional from the GP surgery visited the home regularly to monitor people's health and wellbeing. Referrals were being made to external health professionals in a timely manner, this included referrals to SALT, physiotherapy and occupational therapy. Where referrals had been made, clear information was recorded, which covered the reason for the referral and any outcomes. Where updated guidelines had been provided by health professionals these had been implemented into people’s routines.

People were provided with information in a way they could understand and met their communication needs. One relative said, “Yes [Name of person] knows people through touch and sound, I admire staff what they do they tell [Name of person] and break it down to his level, that’s brilliant.” Relatives received regular contact from the service to provide them with information about their loved ones. One relative said, “Yes [staff] always ring if they need to and I can speak to them anytime.”

Staff said they would pick up on changes in people’s body language or facial expressions, as they knew them well, they could interpret what this could mean, what they would do if they had any concerns, and how they would share this information. One staff member said, “We let parents know how they [people] are.” The registered manager told us they used a “wide range of pictures and symbols” to support people’s communication. The registered manager told us they were in regular contact with people’s relatives and kept them updated when people’s care needs changed.

Care plans were in an easy read format and had been regularly reviewed, with a review date recorded. Hospital passports were in place and contained information about the support people required while in hospital and their capacity to consent. One person had a visual planner in place. An overall visual planner for the home showed planned in-house activities for the week.

People’s relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint. Most relatives said they had never made a complaint. Relatives told us if they had concerns, they would be confident to raise them. One relative said, “I talk to [registered manager] if I have a concern I’ll tell them.” Relatives received regular satisfaction surveys and were able to share their feedback. One relative said, “Yes we have regular forms to put any concerns, wishes or observations.”

Staff told us any complaints would be recorded and responded to by the registered manager. Staff told us how family members were involved in people’s care and what they would do if a relative raised a concern to them. Staff told us changes had been made in the service after feedback had been received from people’s relatives. One staff member told us how different options had been tried for a person, with professional input. This was to ensure they were safe and comfortable while sleeping and when using their wheelchair.

Complaints were responded to and an outcome recorded. Several compliments had been received. Relatives were invited to people’s 6 monthly care reviews and their feedback recorded. We saw relatives were complementary of the staff team and the care they provided to people. Where relatives had raised things, such as new activities they thought people may enjoy this had been followed up after the reviews. Parent/carer surveys were regularly sent out by the registered manager, who used this as an opportunity to make any improvements required.

People were able to access care, treatment and support when they needed to in a timely manner. Feedback from relatives indicated the provider was supporting people’s rights to equity in accessing services. One relative told us how the service had supported their loved one to access support from health professionals when they experienced changes in their posture and said, “Communication and involving the family and the care is really good.”

Staff showed they understood people had a right to receive care and support which met their specific individual needs and explained the process followed if a person required a health appointment. We observed staff treated people equally, without discrimination and respected their individual needs. Staff explained the arrangements the service had in place to support people to attend heath appointments.

Health professionals told us they had no concerns with the service. One health professional said, “[Name of person] has contact with the GP as appropriate and in a timely manner.”

The service had processes to ensure people had access to care, treatment and support when they needed in a way that works for them. People were being supported to regularly visit dentists and opticians. A GP visited the service on a weekly basis. Any concerns about people’s health were raised during these visits. People received annual health checks. Equipment was available within the service to ensure people could be moved safely.

People were provided with the same support and opportunities regardless of their abilities. People benefited from outings, holidays and activities outside of the service. Many people attended a day care service, others took part in a range of activities within the home and in the community. One relative said, “They care for [Name of person] very well and take them on holidays, take them to the pantomime in town and to a pub, they’re good.” Where people could make choices, they were encouraged to do so. People had their health and welfare needs attended to. One relative told us their loved one’s care and support delivered good outcomes for them, “Yes as long as [Name of person] is well and happy that’s the best outcome and [Name of person] is.”

Keyworkers supported people to plan towards their goals, some examples given were a holiday, a day trip or a visit to the theatre. Goals were planned around what the person enjoyed. One staff member said, “All our care is very centred to that person.” Staff explained how they had supported people to have good outcomes to their care. Staff told us how they supported one person to sit down whilst drinking to reduce their risk of choking. Staff told us when the availability of a driver was limited an appropriate taxi service was used to ensure people could access their chosen activities for the day.

People’s care and support was tailored to meet their needs. Health action plans were in place. Person centred care plans were detailed and provided in an easy read format. They recorded people’s current goals, and progress made. Where people had advocates, they had regular contact, and this was recorded. The different lounges at the service provided enough space for communal living.

People were not always able to communicate their wishes for future care or end of life plans. Some relatives told us they had discussed people’s future care and end of life plans with the management team, while other relatives told us they had not yet discussed this but were aware they needed to. One relative said, “Yes I have signed forms, my wishes for [Name of person], they are not able to do it themselves.”

Staff told us people had end of life plans in place, this would record people and their families’ preferences. It included any specific funeral plans.

Where people had ReSPECT forms in place these were fully completed, and relatives had been consulted. The ReSPECT process creates personalised recommendations for a person’s clinical care and treatment in a future emergency in which they are unable to make or express choices. End of life preference forms were also in place for people.