Beeches Care Home is located in Rushden, Northamptonshire. The service provides personal care and accommodation for up to 24 older people, over two floors. Communal areas include a quiet room, lounge, dining room and conservatory. On the day of our inspection there were 16 people living in the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

The inspection was undertaken as part of our routine re-inspection programme, to review the rating from the first comprehensive inspection completed on 15 October 2014.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People felt safe in the service. Safeguarding procedures had been followed and worked to minimise any risks to people’s health and safety. Staff were recruited using a robust process and numbers of staff were appropriate to meet people’s needs. Medicines were managed safely.

People were cared for by staff that had received appropriate induction and refresher training to enable them to perform their roles in the right way. People were enabled to have choice and control and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Where appropriate people living at the service had their freedom lawfully restricted under a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) authorisation. People received an appropriate dietary intake and were able to access healthcare professionals to maintain their health and well-being.

People were provided with person centred care and recognised by staff as being individuals. People told us that staff were always kind and caring and treated them with dignity and respect.

People were encouraged to take part in activities and interests of their choice. The registered manager attended to complaints and concerns in accordance with the formal complaints policy.

There were robust systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and make improvements when these were identified. The service had good leadership and that staff were positive in their desire to provide good quality care for people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Beeches Care Home is located in Rushden, Northamptonshire. The service provides personal care and accommodation for up to 24 older people, over two floors. Communal areas include a quiet room, lounge, dining room and conservatory. On the day of our inspection there were 16 people living in the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

The inspection was undertaken as part of our routine re-inspection programme, to review the rating from the first comprehensive inspection completed on 15 October 2014.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People felt safe in the service. Safeguarding procedures had been followed and worked to minimise any risks to people’s health and safety. Staff were recruited using a robust process and numbers of staff were appropriate to meet people’s needs. Medicines were managed safely.

People were cared for by staff that had received appropriate induction and refresher training to enable them to perform their roles in the right way. People were enabled to have choice and control and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Where appropriate people living at the service had their freedom lawfully restricted under a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) authorisation. People received an appropriate dietary intake and were able to access healthcare professionals to maintain their health and well-being.

People were provided with person centred care and recognised by staff as being individuals. People told us that staff were always kind and caring and treated them with dignity and respect.

People were encouraged to take part in activities and interests of their choice. The registered manager attended to complaints and concerns in accordance with the formal complaints policy.

There were robust systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and make improvements when these were identified. The service had good leadership and that staff were positive in their desire to provide good quality care for people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

People who used the service and relatives gave us positive feedback about their experience of the service.

People told us:-

“It’s not too bad here. It ain’t a bad place!”

“I don’t have to wait long if I need something. It seems they have enough staff here.”

“The staff are very attentive and pleasant with it.”

“If I need something, they come pretty quickly.”

"Oh, it’s lovely here – they try their best.”

A relative told us, "The staff are wonderful and caring. They kept me informed. It's not a smart place but the care transcended that."

A recent survey which represented half of the people who lived at the home, showed that all respondents were satisfied with the care provided.

We found that not all people had been treated with dignity and respect. The provider needed to improve their management of medications, recruitment practice, induction training for staff, maintenance and layout of the home and systems for monitoring the quality of service and care provided. A review of care plans had fallen into arrears.

The home had not had a registered manager since February 2013. That had contributed to shortfalls we had identified.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time. The service did not have a registered manager at the time of our inspection. The provider had arranged for an experienced senior careworker to manage the service until they obtained the necessary qualifications to apply to be a registered manager.

We spoke with two people who used the service and relatives of four other people who used the service. Everyone person we spoke with spoke positively about the home. A person who used the service told us, "Staff are exceedingly kind and considerate. The staff interchange well and I don't notice any difference. I'm able to spend my time as I choose and have lots to do." Relatives we spoke with described staff as being "compassionate" and "friendly". Two relatives felt that not enough staff were on duty, but only one felt that had impacted on the quality of care.

The home catered for people's social needs through scheduled activities like games and physical activity. However, not all people had benefited from activities that were person centred or stimulating. We found that people's care plans required review and more involvement from people and their relatives to make plans more person centred.

We spoke with two people who used the service and a relative of another person who used the service. All of the people we spoke with gave positive feedback about the home. The two people who used the service told us that they had been well looked after by staff who were polite and friendly. Both people told us that they enjoyed living at the home. They liked their bedrooms, enjoyed the meals that had been provided and the activities that were available to them. One person told us, "It's remarkable. Everything gets done. I'm well looked after. The carers are very kind and helpful. I get all the help I need. I'm helped to be as independent as I want to be." Another person told us, "I'm well looked after. Staff know what they should do. The staff are friendly. I get up when i want to. There are plenty of things to do. I don't get bored." A relative told us that they had chosen the home after looking at several other homes. They told us that they were confident that their mother was safe and well looked after. They had been involved in the admission process and other family members had been involved in reviews of their mother's care plan.

We found that staff supported people appropriately and spoke to them politely. Staff encouraged and praised people when they assisted them with activities. People who used the service had been supported by skilled and experienced staff who understood their needs.

On the day of the site visit, there were 24 people living in the home. To help us to understand the experiences people have, we used our Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) tool when the people were having lunch. The SOFI tool allows us to spend time watching what is going on in a service, and helps us to record how people spend their time, the type of support they get and whether they have positive experiences.

The people we spoke to told us that they liked living at the home and they liked the staff. They said the food was lovely and they had two choices. They told us that staff respected their privacy and dignity when giving them personal care. They had their medication when they needed them.

The manager had people's meetings at the home to find out their views about how the staff were meeting their needs, and to find out if they had any concerns. Staff told us relatives were also encouraged to attend the meetings.

We observed staff interacting with people in a positive manner.