Beck House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Safeguarding concerns had not been reported to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as required. Audits had not identified where safeguarding notifications were not being submitted or the shortfalls found in medicines processes. The service worked in partnership with other professionals and was reviewing where recording and engagement could be improved. Managers and staff demonstrated the values of the organisation. There were clear roles and responsibilities. Staff and leaders worked together and there was a positive culture. People had access to the community and activities.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff knew the aims and values of the organisation. A staff member said, “Treating people with respect and dignity. Giving people the best life you can.” Another staff member said, “To make sure people’s lives are fulfilled and interesting.”

The values of the service were displayed. This included, valuing people, choice, participation, safety and working together. Systems were in place such as meetings, communication books and supervision to support staff working together as a team and promoting the homes values.

There was a clear staff structure. Staff knew each other’s roles and responsibilities. A staff member said, “We have staff allocations. I know who I am assigned to support. I know the senior responsibilities.” Staff told us the registered manager was available, approachable and they could raise any concerns.

We observed the registered manager leading by example when a service user required support during a health incident. They directed staff on procedures whilst reassuring the person calmly and ensuring their dignity was maintained.

Staff told us they were able to raise concerns and ideas in meetings and one to one supervision. Staff said managers and senior staff were approachable. Staff knew how to report concerns externally to CQC or the local authority.

There were feedback systems in place through meetings, questionnaires and a complaints process with people, staff and relatives. A relative said, “Yes, [communication] is professional by letters, questionnaires and telephone calls, texts, WhatsApp. They share things with me or verbally every week, staff are lovely.”

Staff told us they were supported. A staff member said, “Yes, I am well supported.” Staff said they worked well as a team, there was a positive staff culture and they supported each another.

The service employed a diverse workforce. There were systems in place to support staff such as an employee assistance programme and drop in sessions for mental health and well-being. Flexible working was taken into account for staff. An employee of the month scheme recognised and thanked staff for their contribution

Senior staff told us internal processes could be improved to ensure records were accessible and up to date. Staff had distinct roles. A staff member said, “It is clear who is responsible for what.”

Notifications were not submitted as required to CQC in relation to 7 allegations of abuse. A notification is information about an event or person which the service is required to inform CQC about. This was a breach of regulation 18 (Registrations). Manager and provider audits were completed. These reviewed a range of areas such as accidents and incidents, complaints, staffing, training and DoLS. Findings fed into the service improvement plan. Care plans were audited in line with people’s 6 monthly reviews. Audits however, did not identify where safeguarding notifications were not being submitted or the shortfalls found in medicines processes. The provider systems were not always efficient in ensuring information and records were accurate. Past information, such as previous mental capacity assessments and health and safety information remained within documentation. This made it difficult to locate current information, which can be a risk for people. Managers could not easily access or update key information such risk assessments and care plans in a timely way due to provider procedures. The service had displayed its CQC assessment rating on their website and at the service as required. A business continuity plan was in place, to guide in emergency circumstances.

People were supported to access the community for activities such as visiting cafes and swimming. People regularly attended a nearby day centre. Staff supported people to go on holiday. A relative said, “The last holiday went down well.” People could receive visitors when they chose. A relative told us how they visited every week. Another relative said, “Yes, I’ve been in this morning and [Name of person] seems happy.”

Staff communicated with people’s families. A relative said, “Yes, I’m in contact with the keyworker.” Another relative said, “Staff ring me if there is anything important.” Staff engaged with health professionals. A staff member said, “We work well with SALT (Speech and Language Therapy) and physios are really good.”

Feedback from professionals was mixed. One health and social care professional said referrals were made when needed and management and staff worked together well with external professionals. However, another health and social professional said the service was reluctant to accept advice around people and would respond, “the person has always done that, it won't change.”

Systems were in place to observe and record activities and people’s health. Further details around how people spent their time would enable the service to demonstrate how staff support has been delivered and what activities had been offered. Health records showed escalation, referrals and advice sought. Outcome of appointments were clearly documented. A health and social care professional said, “I have had great difficulty in getting incident reports,” which include “antecedent, behaviour and consequence. However, since a recent safeguarding, I have received incident forms and improved interaction from the manager.”

Managers were open to learning and improvement. Managers were currently working with external professionals through a number of areas which had been raised about one person’s care and support. Staff told us they had regular team meetings. A staff member said, “I can raise any issues or speak to the [registered] manager at any time.”

The service had an action plan in place to work through identified areas of improvement. Communication systems imparted information to staff. However, safeguarding records did not always demonstrate how learning was effectively shared.