At the last inspection in December 2015 the service was rated Good. At this unannounced inspection on the 30 November 2017 we found the service remained Good. The service met all relevant fundamental standards.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Beech Cliffe on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

Beech Cliffe is a care home located on the outskirts of Rotherham across from Clifton Park. There are local facilities close by and good public transport links. The home caters for up to eight younger people over the age of 18 years old who have a learning disability. There were six people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were kept safe by robust risk assessments that identified any risks they faced and measures to keep them safe. Plans were developed to promote people's independence whilst ensuring their safety. Staff understood the importance of promoting people's independence and this was completed in line with people's care plans. Where incidents had occurred, staff took appropriate actions to prevent them from reoccurring. Checks were in place to reduce the risk of environmental hazards and plans had been drawn up to keep people safe in the event of an emergency.

Staff were trained to administer people's medicines and the registered provider followed best practice in the storage and management of people's prescribed medicines.

Robust recruitments procedures ensured the right staff were employed to meet people’s needs safely.

People were served food in line with their preferences. Meals were tailored to people's choices and people were involved in shopping for food and preparing meals. Where people had specific healthcare needs, these were met. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and worked alongside healthcare professionals where appropriate.

People's rights were protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager understood their responsibilities regarding this.

Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion. They were aware of people's communication methods and how they expressed themselves. Staff empowered people to make choices about their care. Staff respected people's individual differences and supported them with any religious or cultural needs. Staff supported people to maintain relationships with families. People's privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

People had the benefit of a culture and management style that was inclusive and caring. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and had access to policies and procedures to inform and guide them.

People were asked for their views about the service, feedback received was acted upon. The registered manager, staff and senior management team undertook checks and audits of the service to ensure continual improvements. People had access to regular meetings to be involved in the running of the home and staff were also encouraged to contribute their ideas. Staff told us that they felt well supported by management.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

At the last inspection in December 2015 the service was rated Good. At this unannounced inspection on the 30 November 2017 we found the service remained Good. The service met all relevant fundamental standards.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Beech Cliffe on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

Beech Cliffe is a care home located on the outskirts of Rotherham across from Clifton Park. There are local facilities close by and good public transport links. The home caters for up to eight younger people over the age of 18 years old who have a learning disability. There were six people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were kept safe by robust risk assessments that identified any risks they faced and measures to keep them safe. Plans were developed to promote people's independence whilst ensuring their safety. Staff understood the importance of promoting people's independence and this was completed in line with people's care plans. Where incidents had occurred, staff took appropriate actions to prevent them from reoccurring. Checks were in place to reduce the risk of environmental hazards and plans had been drawn up to keep people safe in the event of an emergency.

Staff were trained to administer people's medicines and the registered provider followed best practice in the storage and management of people's prescribed medicines.

Robust recruitments procedures ensured the right staff were employed to meet people’s needs safely.

People were served food in line with their preferences. Meals were tailored to people's choices and people were involved in shopping for food and preparing meals. Where people had specific healthcare needs, these were met. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and worked alongside healthcare professionals where appropriate.

People's rights were protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager understood their responsibilities regarding this.

Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion. They were aware of people's communication methods and how they expressed themselves. Staff empowered people to make choices about their care. Staff respected people's individual differences and supported them with any religious or cultural needs. Staff supported people to maintain relationships with families. People's privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

People had the benefit of a culture and management style that was inclusive and caring. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and had access to policies and procedures to inform and guide them.

People were asked for their views about the service, feedback received was acted upon. The registered manager, staff and senior management team undertook checks and audits of the service to ensure continual improvements. People had access to regular meetings to be involved in the running of the home and staff were also encouraged to contribute their ideas. Staff told us that they felt well supported by management.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Our inspection looked at our five questions; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, speaking with the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

We were unable to gain the views of all the people who were at the home when we visited due to their complex needs. Therefore we also observed how support was provided, reviewed records and spoke with staff to help us understand their experiences.

Is the service safe?

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people’s safety and welfare. Records were in place to monitor any specific areas where people were more at risk and explained what action staff needed to take to protect them.

The home was clean and fresh throughout. Systems were in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection but a comprehensive infection audit had not taken place. The provider told us they were about to undertake the audit and we saw documentation had been introduced to facilitate this.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This helped to reduce the risks to people and enable the service to improve.

We saw various checks took place to ensure the service was operating safely.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed on a regular basis. We saw people who used the service and their relatives had been involved in formulating support plans and these had been regularly reviewed and updated.

Most staff had received appropriate professional development. We saw they had access to a varied training programme that helped them meet the needs of the people they supported. However, records showed some staff had missed attending regular training updates. The provider told us this would be addressed.

We saw staff had received regular support sessions but annual appraisals of their work had not been completed recently. The provider told us they were aware of this and the shortfall was being addressed.

Is the service caring?

We found people were encouraged to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. The staff we spoke with gave us good examples of how people were involved in making decisions about the care and support they received.

People were treated with respect and dignity by staff. The provider had appointed a dignity champion who aimed to promote best practice in this topic. People using the service told us staff treated them with respect and dignity and this was confirmed by our observations.

People’s comments indicated they received the care and support they needed and they were happy with how staff supported them. One person told us, “I do what I want and the staff help me.”

We saw people were involved in a variety of social activities in the community and carried out day to day living skills, such as tidying their rooms and food shopping.

People’s preferences, interests and individual needs were comprehensively recorded in the care files we checked. They also included the people important in their lives and their personal aims, as well as their aspirations and goals. These were clear and measurable.

Is the service responsive?

The home had a complaints procedure which was available to people using and visiting the service. No complaints had been received from people using the service or their representatives. However the local council had looked into some concerns brought to their attention under safeguarding people from abuse. The providers have worked with the council to address these issues.

Satisfaction surveys had been used to enable people to share their views on the service provided. This helped the provider to assess if people were receiving the care and support they needed.

Is the service well-led?

There was a quality assurance system in place to assess if the home was operating correctly. This included surveys as well as internal and external audits. We saw action plans were in place to address identified shortfalls and progress was being made to address these.

Staff had access to policies and procedures, as well as a staff handbook, to inform and guide them. However, during investigations by Rotherham council concerns were identified regarding procedures not followed and shortfalls in record keeping. The provider has told us they will address the issues as soon as the council shares the information with them.

We were unable to gain the views of all the people who used the service when we visited due to their complex needs. Therefore we also observed how support was provided, reviewed records and spoke with staff to help us understand their experiences.

We found people received the care and support they needed. Each person had a care plan which detailed the support they required and how they liked it delivering. The files we saw also outlined their preferences and any risks associated with their care. People were involved in a variety of social activities and carried out day to day living skills, such as shopping.

People received a varied menu and their preferences had been taken into account. We saw staff monitored what people were eating and drinking to make sure they received sufficient nourishment.

There were systems in place to make sure people received their medications safely and we saw staff had completed training in this subject.

Background checks had been carried out on staff before they started to work at the home to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. This included checking if they had any criminal convictions.

We saw there were systems in place to gain people’s views and check if staff were following company policies.

We received information that indicated there may not be enough staff available to ensure people’s needs were being met. Therefore we visited the home to assess this. We found sufficient staff was available to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

We spoke with three people who used the service and three care workers. They all told us they felt there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. People confirmed they had accessed a variety of in-house and community activities.

We saw that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. The people we spoke with told us they decided things and staff respected their decisions. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, decisions were made in their best interest by the people involved in their lives.

People’s comments indicated they received the care and support they needed and they were happy with how staff delivered their care. We saw people were encouraged to be involved in social activities in the community and carried out day to day living skills, such as cleaning their rooms and making meals.

People received a well balanced diet and were involved in choosing what they ate. Staff promoted healthy eating and checked people were eating and drinking properly.

The premises were generally in a good condition and were clean and fresh. The people we spoke with said they were happy with their rooms and the home’s facilities.

Staff received appropriate professional development. The staff we spoke with felt they were well trained and supported. They had access to a varied training programme that enabled them to meet the needs of the people they supported.

We saw the complaints procedure was available to people who used and visited the service. People told us they had no complaints but felt comfortable taking concerns to any of the staff.

We spoke with two people who used the service. One person told us they liked to go horse riding and had recently been on a visit to a local shopping centre. Another person told us they lived semi independently in a flat within the grounds of the main building and liked to help with the gardening.

We spoke with one relative who told us they were able to visit their family member at any time.

We spoke with two people who used the service. One person told us “I am very happy living here, it’s my home”. Another person told us they liked to live semi independently and had their own space when they wanted some quiet time.

One relative we spoke with told us they were happy with the overall care their relative received and would not want their relative to live anywhere else. They also told us that the staff understood the care and welfare needs of their relative.

We spoke with one relative who confirmed they would talk to the manager if they had any concerns. They also told us that their relative felt safe at the home.