42 Beeston Drive

We assessed 7 quality statements in the safe key question and found areas of both good practice and concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question has changed to requires improvement.

Relatives told us people were safe and happy with the support staff provided to them. Risks relating to people were assessed and bespoke plans were developed to meet people’s care and social needs. However, we found improvements were needed in the detail of some people’s plans to ensure staff had enough information on how to provide safe care. The management team also needed to ensure that any restrictive practices were recorded and DoLS updated accordingly.

Staff knew people well and were knowledgeable of people’s care and support requirements.

Fire, health and safety and environment checks were completed. However, we found improvements were required. Checks hadn’t been recorded for a period of time and the inspector identified areas of the environment that required improvement. The nominated individual acted on this feedback as soon as it was raised.

Systems were in place to record events that occurred, including events reported to the local authority and CQC. A provider policy was in place to guide the staff in these areas. However, we found one event had not been reviewed by the management team during our assessment. The nominated individual immediately took action to address this.

Recruitment checks took place and staff completed training prior to providing care to people. Staff spoke positively about training received; this was also reflected in positive feedback from relatives.

People’s care and support needs were assessed prior to moving into Beeston Drive. A relative spoke approvingly over their experience of the transition plan developed in this area when their loved one moved into Beeston Drive.

We assessed 2 quality statements in the effective key question and found areas of good practice and concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for the key question has remained good.

Relatives were positive over the care of staff, and partnership working both internally and externally. Staff worked with people and their loved ones in developing support and ensuring people’s care needs were met.

Staff were kind in their approach to people and respectful of people’s choices.

We assessed 1 quality statement in the caring key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for the key question has remained good.

People received person centred care, and were supported at home and in the community to undertake activities with staff who knew they well. We observed staff communicated with people utilising supporting tools to meet people’s communication needs.

Relatives feedback gave examples where staff had supported people to develop independence. Staff worked with people and relatives to enable people to have choice and control.

We assessed 1 quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for the key question has remained good.

We observed staff providing personalised care to people, who had an understanding of person centred care and specific preferences.

Relatives spoke positively about activities and engagement people were involved with, highlighting accessing the community and supporting people to be as independent as possible.

We assessed 7 quality statements in the well-led key question and found areas of good practice and concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was requires improvement. Our rating for the key question has remained requires improvement.

We identified one breach of the legal regulations. Audits and checks had not identified failings we found during the assessment, including issues with people’s care records, risks to people, health and safety checks, environmental safety and staff supervision.

The management team acknowledged the improvements required in these areas and had taken actions to address some of the concerns identified during the assessment.

Inconsistency of managers at Beeston Drive meant staff received inconsistent leadership, which had an effect on staff morale. This also had an impact on the quality of support, oversight and ensuring completion of audits and checks.

The management team spoke openly about the challenges of inconsistent management and actions required to make improvements.

Relatives and staff worked in partnership and collaboration. This included ensuring relatives were involved in appointments and planning of any changes in care. Relatives felt staff were engaged and attentive. However, some changes had occurred with staff leaving and concerns were raised by relatives of changes of management and poor communication from senior leaders.