Beachview

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

We assessed 8 quality statements within the safe key question. We found improvements had been made since the previous inspection in March and April 2023. The service was no longer in breach of regulations relating to assessing risk, safety monitoring and management, and staffing. This meant people were safe and were not at risk of avoidable harm. Safe systems were in place to manage risks. People, family members and external health and social care staff told us they felt the service was safe. Where things went wrong there were systems to identify, manage and learn from the incident. People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff understood how to report concerns and to whom. People were involved with managing their care and support, including risks. Staff were provided with clear guidance to support people safely. There were enough trained and skilled staff to support people. Medicines were managed safely.

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.

There was a robust process in place to monitor incidents, accidents and near misses. This ensured all accidents or incidents were individually reviewed and prompt action could be taken where required. Incidents and accidents were analysed monthly. There had been a reduction in incidents, staff told us this was because they had learned how people needed their support better and there was a stable staff team now. Since the last inspection a number of improvements have been made and new policies, procedures and quality assurance processes have been introduced. These have resulted in an improvement in the overall quality and safety of the service and demonstrates organisational learning and continued improvement.

The registered manager and staff operate a proactive open approach to safety events, this provided assurance they monitored safety events effectively. The registered manager spoke about the past difficulties they had, which resulted in the previous rating. They were open and transparent and it was evident they had worked hard to improve the service to provide people with safe, effective and person-centred care. One staff member said, “It’s much better now we have had a lot of training.”

People were safe. Staff and leaders promoted an open proactive culture to safety events. Incidents were reported and investigated this resulted in lessons learnt and supported continued improvement of practice. People and their relatives spoke positively about the staff and management team. They told us they could approach them with any ideas, worries or concerns. They had confidence action would be taken.

Feedback from professionals and partners was positive on how staff and management worked together with them to provide consistent, effective care. One professional said, “I have recently been involved with this home supporting a client in their care. I have been pleasantly surprised. They have been responsive, provided records as requested, and contacted me 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. Another professional said, “The general atmosphere is calm. Staff appear generally contented and enjoy interacting with the clients. I do not have any ongoing concerns in relation to the work I have been doing.”

Feedback from professionals and partners was positive on how staff and management worked together with them to provide consistent, effective care. One professional said, “I have recently been involved with this home supporting a client in their care. I have been pleasantly surprised. They have been responsive, provided records as requested, and contacted me 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. Another professional said, “The general atmosphere is calm. Staff appear generally contented and enjoy interacting with the clients. I do not have any ongoing concerns in relation to the work I have been doing.”

The registered manager stated they are constantly looking to improve communication and systems between health and social care agencies to ensure people received good care. The registered manager spoke about their local health partners and described their positive and continuing support. Staff told us that they are pleased with the improvements the service had made since the last inspection. Comments included, “Communication is much better”, “We are have much better continuity of care., “Training has improved and we now feel more confident.”

People told us that staff were proactive in seeking additional support for any health needs. Relatives said, “[Loved one] goes out more now. We are much more relaxed and feel that they are safer.”

People told us they felt safe at the service. One person said, “I like it here, its my home”. A family member told us, “We are certainly more relaxed about feeling its safe for [loved one] now. We have good communication with the manager and staff.”

Staff demonstrated knowledge about how to assess and manage risks. Positive behaviour support plans were in place. Staff told us that they understood how to support people in a positive way. Staff told us they had confidence in all managers that concerns would be addressed if raised and felt the culture was good and things were discussed openly. Staff told us morale was good and everyone enjoyed working with each other. There was a good sense of teamwork.

People had Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) documents in place where appropriate and staff and leaders received training in this area. DoLS had been approved by the local authority and notifications sent to CQC in line with current best practice. Safeguarding policy and procedures were in place and instructed staff how to recognise, report and record abuse. Staff had access to a whistle blowing policy and were encouraged to make concerns known. The service had a record of safeguarding concerns and a full record included the type of abuse, people involved and description of the incident as well as the outcome and any lessons learned

There were no signs of abuse. People were supported and included in every thing and independence was promoted in a respectful way. Staff were available to support people in a safe but empowering way. There were sufficient staff available to ensure people were kept safe.

Risks were managed in a way to ensure people were able to be as independent as possible and could enjoy activities they liked doing. A family member told us how an approach to positive risk taking had supported their relative to travel on public transport with support, a difficult thing for a person with very complex needs. This was assessed and the person and their family were very involved in the assessment.

Staff were available to offer support to people. We observed staff supporting people safely and with kindness. Staff were proactive in reducing and managing risks within the service and out in the community.

Risk assessments were detailed, person centred and provided clear guidance for staff. Processes were in place to record and audit incidents which led to the identification of trends, actions were put in place to mitigate the risks.

The registered manager and staff demonstrated detailed knowledge of the needs and preferences of people living at Beachview. Management ensured risks to people were regularly reviewed, and guidance to staff updated if needed. Staff were knowledgeable about risks to the people they supported. For example, where people required support to manage their health conditions. Staff spoke confidently and accurately about the support people needed to manage their epilepsy and other health conditions.

Staff had received fire awareness training and understood the actions they should take should a fire occur. Staff were clear about the regular safety checks to be carried out. One staff showed us the food checks carried out in the kitchen. Staff told us they participated in regular training around all aspects of environmental safety. Records confirmed staff training.

People appeared at ease in the service. Staff used equipment appropriately to promote people's safety, for example they carried out visual checks before using moving equipment.

People spoke positively about the home and their bedrooms. A person explained the fire drills to us and said they had had fire safety training with the provider. People had individual plans in place to aid their evacuation in the event of fire. These were specific to the needs of each person. People and relatives told us their had been some redecoration in the past year and this had improved the environment.

Systems were in place to identify and manage foreseeable environment risks within the service. This meant people, visitors and staff were effectively protected from the risk of harm. Equipment was monitored and maintained according to a schedule. In addition, gas, electricity and electrical appliances were checked and serviced regularly. Fire safety risks had been assessed by a specialist and where necessary action taken to ensure the environment was safe.

People told us there were enough staff. People felt confident staff would listen to them and were trained to carry out their role. One person said, “Staff are always helping me.” One relative told us, “it has really improved, they got on top of the staffing issues, always adequate staff in the correct positions now.”

Managers and staff described a clear induction and training process. The registered manager had oversight of staff training and compliance. Staff we spoke to were positive about the training and support they received from the provider. They knew where to find information and how to seek further guidance if needed.

Recruitment processes were in place and robust. Checks were carried out as required and these included police and criminal records checks, right to work checks and references were obtained and verified. Training records showed staff complete a wide range of core training, including Safeguarding, First Aid, Equality and Diversity, Health and Safety, Manual Handling etc. More specific training, tailored to the particular needs of those at the home, was also provided. For example, training in epilepsy, learning disability and autistic spectrum conditions. Communication support and equality.

We observed there were enough staff and they were engaging with people in a positive and friendly way. We observed staff taking time to sit with people and hold conversations, and were attentive to people's needs.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to control the risk of infection. Staff had been trained in infection control techniques and had access to personal protective equipment (PPE). The provider's infection prevention and control policies and procedures reflected current practice guidelines. They understood where and how to seek advice should they have an infection control concern.

The home was clean and the provider was promoting safety through the hygiene practices of the premises with staff completing regular cleaning in accordance with schedules and need. There were practices in place to support people who were not keen on keeping their own rooms clean or having staff clean.

People and relatives were generally happy with the cleanliness of the home.

Staff had received training in infection prevention and control. Staff understood the guidance for the use of personal protective equipment and told us there was enough to meet the needs of the support they delivered.

People received their medicines as prescribed and they could have 'as required' (PRN) medicines when needed. Some people told us how they liked to receive their medicines and we saw staff supporting people to receive their medicines in line with their wishes and guidance recorded in their support plans.

Suitable arrangements were in place for obtaining, storing, administering, recording, disposing safely of unused medicines and auditing of medicines systems. The provider undertook to review the procedures for recording temperature storage of medicines to ensure these would always be kept at the correct temperature and therefore safe to use. Systems were in place to ensure that when additional medicines such as antibiotics were prescribed, these were obtained promptly meaning there were no delays in commencement of administration. Audits of medicines were undertaken to identify any discrepancies with stock levels and ensure records of administration were fully completed. When issues happened, they were promptly found and appropriate actions taken to mitigate any risk and address the underlaying cause to reduce re occurrence. Incidents were reported to external agencies and families were informed.

Staff had been trained to administer medicines and had been assessed as competent to do so safely. The provider's procedure ensured this was reassessed at least yearly using a formal approach. Guidance was in place to help staff understand when to give people their medicines and in what dose. Staff we spoke with were able to give detailed information about the medicines people took and what they were for. For example, a staff member described the protocol for giving medicine in yogurt, he told us this was checked with the GP and pharmacist to make sure it was safe. Records confirmed this. We saw the staff member explaining to the person they were putting their medicine in yogurt. The person seemed happy to take the medicine.