Beech House is a residential care home registered to provide support to 49 people, some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of inspection there were 46 people using the service.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People told us they felt safe living in the service and that staff made them feel safe. Risks to people were appropriately planned for and managed. Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely. However, some prescription creams were not being stored securely.

People told us there were enough suitably knowledgeable staff to provide them with the care they required promptly.

Staff had received appropriate training and support to carry out their role effectively. However, the service still needed to finish yearly appraisals for staff. Plans were in place to develop upon the skills and knowledge of the staff team.

People received appropriate support to maintain healthy nutrition and hydration.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS.) People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People told us staff were kind to them and respected their right to privacy. People told us staff supported them to remain independent. Our observations supported this.

People told us they were encouraged to feed back on the service and participate in meetings to shape the future of the service.

People received personalised care that met their individual needs and preferences. People were actively involved in the planning of their care. People were supported to access meaningful activities and follow their individual interests.

People told us they knew how to complain and felt they would be listened to.

The manager instilled a culture of openness and transparency within the service. Staff told us that the managers were visible and led by example. Our observations supported this. Staff and people using the service were invited to take part in discussions around shaping the future of the service.

There was a robust quality assurance system in place and shortfalls identified were promptly acted on to improve the service.

Beech House is a residential care home registered to provide support to 49 people, some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of inspection there were 46 people using the service.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People told us they felt safe living in the service and that staff made them feel safe. Risks to people were appropriately planned for and managed. Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely. However, some prescription creams were not being stored securely.

People told us there were enough suitably knowledgeable staff to provide them with the care they required promptly.

Staff had received appropriate training and support to carry out their role effectively. However, the service still needed to finish yearly appraisals for staff. Plans were in place to develop upon the skills and knowledge of the staff team.

People received appropriate support to maintain healthy nutrition and hydration.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS.) People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People told us staff were kind to them and respected their right to privacy. People told us staff supported them to remain independent. Our observations supported this.

People told us they were encouraged to feed back on the service and participate in meetings to shape the future of the service.

People received personalised care that met their individual needs and preferences. People were actively involved in the planning of their care. People were supported to access meaningful activities and follow their individual interests.

People told us they knew how to complain and felt they would be listened to.

The manager instilled a culture of openness and transparency within the service. Staff told us that the managers were visible and led by example. Our observations supported this. Staff and people using the service were invited to take part in discussions around shaping the future of the service.

There was a robust quality assurance system in place and shortfalls identified were promptly acted on to improve the service.

At our inspection on 16 October 2013 the provider was non-compliant with regard to the management of people’s medication. This was because they had failed to ensure a robust system of management audits and ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed.

At our inspection 23 December 2013 we found there had been improvements. We saw that appropriate arrangements were now in place in relation to the recording of medicine received and administered and a regular audit of medication stock.

The majority of people we spoke with were living with dementia and had limited capacity to tell us their views of the service. However, we did speak with four people who understood the care and treatment and choices available to them. People told us they were asked for their consent before staff performed a task to support them. One person said, “The staff here are smashing. They cannot do enough for you.” Another told us, “They (care staff) do not rush you, they ask me if I want to get up or lie in bed for a bit longer. I like that.”

During our inspection we looked at the care records of five people who used the service. We found that people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

During our inspection we looked at how information in medication administration records and care notes for people living in the service supported the safe handling of their medicines. We found shortfalls in the management of people’s medicines where we could not be assured that people were receiving their medicines as intended by the prescriber.

We looked at how the provider supported people to access a formal complaints system. We saw that complaints were listened to and acted on effectively.

We saw that records were kept securely and could be located promptly when needed. This meant that people’s rights to confidentiality were respected.

We spoke with five people who used the service, all told us staff were kind, caring and listened to their views. They were confident that staff would meet their needs and support them to respect their choice and independence.

We spoke with one relative, a general practitioner (GP) and a district nurse who told us communication within the service was "excellent" and that they had confidence that the service responded well to the needs of people who used the service.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.

We spoke with seven people who used the service who told us that the staff were caring, treated them with respect, listened to them and acted on what they said. They told us that their needs were met and that they were aware of how to complain about the service that they were provided with if they were unhappy. A person showed us their care plan and they told us that they had been consulted about the contents of the plan and said ‘this is where I tell staff what I like’.