Benslow Nursing Home

We found the following examples of good practice

Information was displayed about COVID-19 giving clear and accessible advice. The provider had policies, procedures and risks assessments for managing the service in relation to COVID-19.

The home was clean and there was cleaning ongoing during our visit. Staff were clear on how to keep the service clean and reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19.

People were supported in their rooms due to the ongoing outbreak in the home, so the activities organiser spent time with people in their rooms to help reduce social isolation. Visiting was not restricted; safe controls were in place to help reduce risks to people and visitors.

All staff, external health professionals and visitors, were asked COVID-19 vaccination status, and required to have negative rapid COVID-19 test before entering the service.

When people tested positive for COVID-19 they isolated in their rooms, for a set period of time. Staff were clear on what it meant to isolate and what symptoms of COVID-19 to look out for. Information was displayed for staff awareness. Regular testing was in place to help end isolation when safe to do so.

Staff had received training on donning and doffing PPE, infection control and COVID-19. They told us they felt very supported and had enough information to do their jobs. We saw them workly safely. There was a plan in place to help manage staffing in the event of staff being absent due to COVID-19. There had been no impact on people in relation to staffing.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ Staff told us that people were spending more time with people when supporting them with care tasks and they ensured they had something to occupy them while spending time isolating in their rooms.

¿ The provider had developed policies, procedures and risks assessments for managing the service in relation to COVID-19.

¿ People and staff who were in the higher risk groups had risk assessments completed.

¿ When people tested positive for COVID-19 they had to isolate in their rooms, for a set period of time. Staff were clear on what it meant to isolate and what symptoms of COVID-19 to look out for.

¿ Staff had received training on donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE), infection control and COVID-19. They told us they felt very supported and had enough information to do their jobs safely.

¿ Information was displayed on entering bedrooms about people’s dietary needs for quick reference when agency staff were supporting the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were happy at the service and were supported by staff who knew them well. People felt privacy and dignity was promoted. People were able to choose how to spend their time and encouraged to make decisions about their care. People’s care plans included information that gave staff information on how to support people. Agency staff were provided with a handbook so they were informed about people’s needs easily.

People told us they enjoyed the activities available. People had recently had the opportunity to go out and there were plans to develop this further. There were communal areas throughout the home which were all used regularly. Some areas of the home were being refurbished. People told us they liked the outcome.

The recruitment process and training systems meant people were supported by staff who were suitable to work in a care setting and equipped for their role. Staff told us that they felt supported. People’s view on staffing was that in most cases there was enough staff to meet their needs. Staff told us that in most cases there was enough staff, at times in staff absence they were busy but they prioritised care needs. On the day of inspection people had their needs met in a timely fashion.

People had their individual risks assessed and staff were aware of these. People were supported safely. People received their medicines when needed and these were managed safely. People told us that personal care needs were met in a way they liked. People told us that staff were kind and they were confident to speak up if they had any concerns.

The provider had systems in place to help them identify and resolve any issues in the home. The registered manager was known throughout the home and people and staff were positive about them. All staff were clear about what was expected of them and any lessons learned from events or incidents.

The service met the characteristics for a rating of "Good" in all key questions.

More information about our inspection findings is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection on the 20 September 2016 the service was rated as Good in four key questions and Requires Improvement in one key question. The rating for Responsive has improved at this inspection.

Why we inspected:

This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service to ensure it provides safe and effective care. We will plan further inspections in the future.

Benslow Nursing Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 35 older people, some of whom live with dementia. At this inspection 28 people were living at the service.

The service had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe and staff knew how to identify the risk of abuse. We found that individual risks were assessed and managed. There were sufficient staff to support people and they had been recruited safely. People’s medicines were managed safely.

People were supported by staff who were trained and supervised. People had their capacity assessed and consent sought and Deprivation of Liberty applications had been applied for appropriately.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts and there was regular access to healthcare professionals. Professionals were positive about the service.

People were treated with dignity and respect and were involved in the planning of their care. We found that confidentiality was promoted.

The provision of activities required some development and the service was without a regular activities organiser due to long term leave. The registered manager was trying to recruit to the temporary post.

People received care that met their needs and new care plans were being introduced, these were clear and informative. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and these were responded to appropriately.

People knew the registered manager well and were positive about them as well as the management systems. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. The staff were clear on the role and shared the same ethos as the registered manager.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Benslow Nursing Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Benslow Nursing Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 35 people. There were 30 people living at the home on the day of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received care that met their individual needs. This was in relation to personal care, pressure care management, and support with mobility and continence care. Support was carried out safely with staff working in accordance with risk assessments, care plans and the training they had received. Following our last inspection, targeted training had been provided to address the shortfalls we identified.

There were systems put into place to oversee staff practice and to provide them with guidance and support. New roles had been developed to give staff responsibilities to help instil and sustain good practice. These roles were champions in specific areas such as falls, nutrition and dementia care. Staff were more positive and working in line with the management team’s aims and ethos.

The management team were open and honest and had shared lessons learned with the staff team and also people who used the service and their relatives. People, their relatives and staff were all positive about the management of the service and the recent improvements across the home.

We found that staff asked people for consent and acted in accordance with their wishes when providing care and treatment for people at the service. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. For example, one person had a deprivation of liberty documentation in place to protect them from leaving the service unescorted. Staff were aware of how to support people to make decisions about their care and how to use the mental capacity act to promote their best interests.

People's needs were assessed and person centred care and treatment was planned to ensure people's safety and welfare. Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed, and activities provided to support their individual needs. People we spoke with and feedback from their relatives told us they were happy with the care being provided. People were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs and care plans were in place to support this.

Staff received regular mandatory and refresher training, and were given opportunities to develop professionally, through additional courses, supervision and appraisal. Feedback from people and relatives using the service were used along with audits of the service to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

We looked at care records which were detailed and individualised. The records outlined people's needs and equipped staff with good quality information. This enabled staff to support people well.

We looked at staffing rotas and found that adequate numbers of suitably experienced and qualified staff were on shift.

We found that people's views were sought about the quality of the service. These views were not formally taken forward and developed into an action plan to demonstrate what changes the service intended to make.

The service had a call alarm system. Call buttons were placed out of reach for two people and could not be located in two other instances. This meant that if people had needed to contact staff they would have been unable to, potentially placing them at risk of harm.