Beau House

Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. People and those who matter to them had safeguarding information in a form they could use, and they knew how and when to raise a safeguarding concern. The service had enough staff, including for one-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted. The numbers and skills of staff matched the needs of people using the service. Staff recruitment and induction training processes promoted safety, including those for agency staff. Staff knew how to take into account people’s individual needs, wishes and goals. Some aspects of people's medicines were not always managed in a way that supported best practice. However, we found no evidence people had been harmed, and the provider took immediate action after our feedback. In other areas of medicines management we found the service ensured people’s behaviour was not controlled by excessive and inappropriate use of medicines. Staff understood and implemented the principles of STOMP (stopping over-medication of people with a learning disability, autism or both) and ensured that people’s medicines were reviewed by prescribers in line with these principles.

Staff completed a comprehensive assessment of each person’s support needs. People had care and support plans that were personalised, holistic, strengths-based and reflected their needs and aspirations, included physical and mental health needs. Care plans reflected a good understanding of people’s needs, including relevant assessments of people’s communication support and sensory needs. People were supported by staff who had received relevant training. This included training in the wide range of strengths and impairments people with a learning disability and or autistic people may have, mental health needs, communication tools, positive behaviour support, and all restrictive interventions. Staff empowered people to make their own decisions about their care and support.

People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to. Staff saw people as their equal and created an inclusive atmosphere. People felt valued by staff who showed genuine interest in their well-being and quality of life.

Staff used person-centred planning tools and approaches to discuss and plan with people how to reach their goals and aspirations. Staff offered choices tailored to individual people using a communication method appropriate to that person. The service met the needs people using the service, including those with needs related to protected characteristics. For example, needs around sexual orientation, religious and cultural needs, and disability without feeling discriminated against. People were supported to understand their rights and explore meaningful relationships.

The leadership of the service worked hard to create a learning culture. Staff felt valued and empowered to suggest improvements and question poor practice. There was a transparent and open and honest culture between people, those important to them, staff and leaders. They all felt confident to raise concerns and complaints. Staff gave honest information and suitable support, and applied duty of candour where appropriate. The service apologised to people, and those important to them, when things went wrong. Staff were able to explain their role in respect of individual people without having to refer to documentation. Some aspects of governance processes were not operated effectively at the time of our inspection. For example, the issues we found with medicines management had not been identified before our inspection. However, the provider responded well to our feedback and made rapid improvements to reduce the likelihood of such shortfalls in future.