Bentley Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Overall, people received safe care from staff who were well trained and received supervision and support in line with the provider’s policy. Risks to people were assessed, with plans in place for how these would be mitigated. Accidents, incidents and complaints were logged and reviewed consistently, with actions documented and learning considered and shared with the wider staff team. The provider had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines, however some of these needed strengthening.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they felt safe living at the home and the home took action to make improvements if required. One relative told us, “When they see something wrong, they put it right.” Another relative said, “They are on the ball if anything is amiss.”

Staff and leaders were confident that there was a positive learning culture at the home. One staff member told us, “I feel everyone is open and honest and if things happen or go wrong we learn from it.”

The home completed records of accidents and incidents and reviewed them regularly to identify lessons that could be learned to make improvements and prevent re-occurrences. Leaders from the provider also provided oversight of these records to ensure this process was followed.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us they felt safe living at the home and with the staff who supported them. One person said, “The staff are all kind. I feel safe here, it’s a safe environment.” Another person told us, “I do feel safe here.”

Staff told us they had received training about how to recognise and report abuse. They knew how and when to report concerns both internally and to other organisations such as the local authority, CQC and the police. A member of staff said, “I’ve never witnessed any unkindness here, but I would definitely report it if I did.”

People looked relaxed and comfortable in their surroundings and with the staff who supported them. Staff interacted with people in a kind and respectful manner. Staff responded quickly to any requests for assistance.

There were systems in place to ensure all staff received training and regular refresher training in safeguarding adults from abuse. Information about how to report safeguarding concerns was displayed around the building. Safeguarding incidents were reported, recorded and investigated.

We saw people were involved and asked about managing risks to themselves. However we found one person who had expressed opinions about how they wanted their care to be provided and staff had consulted and agreed on measures with a representative of the person rather than the person themselves. We shared this with the provider who took immediate action to review the decisions to ensure they were meeting the person's wishes.

Staff felt they had enough clear information in the care plans which they could access using electronic handsets at any time.

Staff were observed using equipment safely, which was readily available and safely stored. We observed staff taking time to enable people to be as independent as possible and do what they could when mobilising

Each person’s electronic care records contained a summary page on which key risks were documented. The type and number of risk assessments completed, was dependent on people’s needs and where risks or issues had been identified. For example, where people had issues with mobilising, they had mobility and manual handling risk assessments. People who were at risk of choking when eating, had risk assessments in place specific to this issue. A number of standardised assessments were completed to monitor people’s health and wellbeing. This included nutritional risk assessments and ones concerned with people’s skin integrity and risk of developing pressure sores. Monitoring records were kept up to date. For example, people who spent time in their rooms were regularly checked on and good pressure care management helped to reduce the risk of skin breakdown.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People were supported by sufficient appropriately trained staff to meet their needs safely. People were complimentary about staff. One person said, “The staff are good. They are helpful. They help me a lot.” People were also positive about the availability of staff when they needed them. A person told us, “I don’t have to wait long when I press my buzzer.”

Staff told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were positive about the training and support they received. A member of staff said, “The training is very good. You get all the training you need and can request extra training if you need it.” Another member of staff told us, “I have regular supervisions and feel really supported

There was a good staff presence throughout the home and people did not have to wait long for assistance. There were regular checks on people who chose to spend time in their bedrooms or were being cared for in bed. Staff spent quality time with people engaging in conversation or activities. The atmosphere in the home was happy and relaxed.

The provider operated safe recruitment processes. This included undertaking appropriate checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and obtaining suitable references. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staffing levels were based on the needs and number of people who lived at the home and were kept under review. Staff received regular training appropriate to their role and there were regular checks on their performance and knowledge to ensure they remained skilled and competent. All new staff received a period of induction which gave them the skills and knowledge and training to meet people’s needs.

People were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection because staff followed the provider’s procedures and best practices. People told us the home was clean and fresh smelling. One person told us, “It’s a nice clean place.”

Staff had received training in infection, prevention and control and understood the importance of following correct procedures. Staff told us they had good supplies of disposable gloves and aprons.

All areas of the home were clean and smelt fresh. Staff attended to any spillages straight away. Staff were observed using personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons, appropriately. Handwashing facilities and sanitising gel were appropriately sited throughout the home. We observed staff use these at appropriate times and in line with the policy of the home and national guidance.

An infection, prevention and control policy was in place which was regularly reviewed to ensure it reflected current guidance and best practice. Staff had received training in infection, prevention and control. Cleaning schedules were completed daily to ensure good hygiene standards were maintained. Designated cleaning staff were employed.

People’s experience confirmed they received their medicines as prescribed and on time. One person told us, “I get my medicine throughout the day, and I can ask for pain relief at any time.” People’s relatives told us they were kept informed of any changes.

Staff supported people to work with healthcare professionals so their medicines were reviewed and changes in treatment plans were documented in the care plans. Staff (including agency staff) received medicines training and were assessed as competent annually to provide medicines support and have the necessary skills and experience to reconcile people’s medicines. Staff had dedicated time to manage medicines processes, such as ordering and receiving. Staff told us the GP visited the care home once weekly to review people and their medicines. The Nurse in charge carried out daily medicine stock checks which included physical count of controlled drugs and ensuring medicines administration records (MARs) were all signed.

Medicines support (including administration) was recorded accurately and contemporaneously. An accurate record was made when medicines were not administered, for example: person asleep, medicine out of stock, refused. Medicines risk assessments were carried out and reviewed regularly for people who were self-administering inhalers. There was a process to support people to access treatment for minor ailments for example with homely remedies. Staff recorded the use of these and outcomes. Where thickeners were prescribed to be added to resident drinks, to reduce the risk of them choking, the electronic system would not allow staff to record how much thickener was used. We cannot be assured people had their drinks thickened appropriately, as accurate records were not maintained. Fridge temperature was recorded regularly twice a day however the records did not match the providers medication policy. We cannot be ensured of the accuracy of recordings and safe storage of medicines. Records of controlled drugs (CDs) were made in line with legislation however entries were not always under a generic drug name but different brands were counted under one entry. ‘When required’ (PRN) medicine protocols were in place however they did not consistently have enough detailed and personalised information to support staff give these medicines correctly and when needed. The service completed regular medicine audits, but these had failed to identify the concerns we found and therefore needed improvement to ensure medicines were always managed safely.