Beachview

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

We assessed 4 quality statements within the effective key question. We found improvements had been made since the previous inspection in March 2023. This meant the effectiveness of people's care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes. Systems were in place to ensure consent to care and treatment; assessment of people’s needs and support to live healthier lives. Staff teams and external services worked well together. People, family members and external health and social care professionals told us they felt the service was effective.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us they reviewed people’s care and support plans based on individual outcomes and adapted them where necessary. Staff and leaders also told us that they place the importance of ensuring the environment met people’s individual sensory and physical needs.

Assessments were completed before people moved to the home. This included where appropriate, consultation with other professionals involved in the person's care and family members. Support plans were then developed to include people's identified needs and the choices they had made about the care and support they wished to receive. Support plans contained details about the person’s preferences, occupation, hobbies or interests.

People and those close to them had been involved in developing their care plans to meet their individual needs and preferences. Care plans showed detailed assessments of people’s needs and clear guidance for staff to follow to manage them. For example, one person told us how they were involved with their needs assessment and subsequent support plan, “I told them what I like before I came, its ok so far.” Records relating to this person confirmed they had capacity to make decisions independently.

Support plans were detailed and person- centred. Staff told us the details in the plans reflected the needs and wishes of each person. For example, autistic people had clear developed sensory plans. People who needed them had positive behaviour support plans. One staff told us, “If I am not sure, I ask someone and read the support plan.”

Support plans and related records viewed showed consideration and reflection of current legislation and practice guidance. For example, oral health support plans were in place. Records identified meetings with people and families took place and contained relevant information.

People and, where appropriate, family members were fully involved in decisions relating to their care. One family member told us, “I am always kept informed about every aspect of care, medicines, etc. They phone me and send photos and the contact is excellent.” We observed all the staff knew each person well. We saw a staff member notice that a person was looking at the TV which was off. The staff member asked the person if they wanted a particular video on. The person then showed with their facial expressions they were pleased.

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.

Support plans included information about people's past medical history and how current medical needs should be supported. People have hospital passports and health action plans in place. Some of these did need updating, which the registered manager arranged straight away. External health professionals felt they were contacted appropriately and any recommendations made were followed by staff. One external professional told us, “They have been responsive, provided records as requested, and contacted me unsolicited to ask further (and appropriate) questions. I have found my client to be well-dressed and apparently contented. I have not had cause to raise any concerns regarding any aspects of his care.”

Staff supported people to attend health appointments. This meant people were supported to attend appointments by staff who knew them, but also that information required by other professionals during the appointment would be available. Any decisions or further treatment required following an appointment would also be known by the service. There had been a recent occasion where a person missed an appointment due to human error. This was taken very seriously by staff and managers and action taken to re book and let everyone involved know the situation.

People were encouraged and supported to improve and maintain their physical health. One person told us, “Staff are trying to help me exercise so I can be more independent and walk better.”

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.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA assessments had been completed and showed where people did not have capacity to make decisions, such as for personal care and receiving medicines, decision specific assessments were made. These included consultation with those close to the person and decisions had been made in the best interests of the person. Where necessary, applications had been made to the relevant authority and nobody was being unlawfully deprived of their liberty. There were systems in place to ensure that renewal applications were submitted in a timely way prior to existing DoLS becoming out of date.

Staff were following people's documented wishes. People's right to decline care was understood and were able to talk in detail about people’s best interest decisions. Staff said that, should people decline care or medicines, they would return a short while later to offer assistance again. Should people continue to decline they would encourage but respect the person's decisions and inform the management team. One staff member said, “We ask people what they like, we offer different things for people to chose from, we look at eye contact and face to help us understand the choices for some people.”

Where people had capacity to make decisions, we saw they consented with the proposed care and support. One person said, “I chose what to do then tell the staff.” We saw how the person did this and how staff supported them throughout the visit. Staff were heard providing people with choices in relation to where they spent their time, what they wanted to do and if they wanted to be involved in activities.