Archived: Bennett House

Bennett House is a residential care home for 45 people some of whom live with dementia. The home has four units over one ground floor. These are called Primrose, Rosebud, Jasmine and Bluebell. At the time of inspection there where 38 people living in the home.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Medications were safely managed. People who lived in the home and relatives we spoke with all gave positive feedback about the home and the staff who worked in it. The service had a relaxed feel and people could move freely around the service as they chose. People were able to have control over their lives and participate in activities they enjoyed.

Care plans and risk assessments were person centred and detailed how people wished and needed to be supported. They were regularly reviewed and updated as required showed that people's GPs and other healthcare professionals were contacted for advice about people's health needs whenever necessary. We saw the service had responded promptly when people had experienced health problems.

The registered manager and provider used different methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits of the service and staff meetings to seek the views of staff about the service. The staff team were consistent and the providers were also involved in the running of the service.

Staff were recruited safely, received a robust induction and suitable training to do their job role effectively. All staff had been supervised in their role.

The home had carried out various checks to ensure the environment was safe and infection control processes were in place. The home had up to date policies in place for staff guidance.

The registered manager had signed up to two pilots regarding oral health of people living in the home and staff training to reduce hospital admissions. This meant the registered manager and staff put people at the centre of the care being delivered.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Bennett House is a residential home that provides personal care and accommodation for up to 45 older people, most of whom are living with dementia. The service accommodated people across four separate units, with individual facilities connected by a number of communal areas. At the time of the inspection, there were 43 people living at the service and a registered manager was in post. 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 told us that they felt safe living at the service and staff understood how to recognise abuse and protect people. Risks to people had been assessed and were managed effectively. People received their medicines as prescribed. There were enough staff to keep people safe and the registered manager had safe recruitment practices in place.

People received support from a staff team who understood their roles and responsibilities. People were asked for their consent before support was provided. The service had systems in place to assess people’s mental capacity. Where required the registered manager made applications to the authorising agencies for a DoLS. Staff understood the principles of the MCA and DoLS and could apply these when delivering care and support. People had their nutritional needs met and enjoyed a choice of food and drinks. People’s health needs were met and they were supported to access healthcare professionals where needed.

People felt staff were kind and caring and staff supported people with their individual preferences. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. People could make choices about how they received their care and support. We saw that staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and promoted peoples independence.

People and their relatives were involved in the development and review of their care plans. People had access to a range of activities, which met their individual preferences. People told us that they were able to raise complaints and the registered manager responded to complaints appropriately.

People and staff were involved in the development of the service. The registered manager actively sought people’s views to develop the service. The service was well led by an approachable management team who had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

Prior to this inspection the Care Quality Commission (CQC) had received concerns relating to a number of issues that were addressed through this inspection with the registered manager.

Not all the people we met were able to speak with us about the care they received and their experience of living in the home. Therefore we observed how staff interacted and supported people. This helped us to make a judgement on how their needs were being met.

During this inspection we spoke in private with all the care staff on duty, the deputy manager and the registered manager.

Staff were respectful and involved people in making decisions to make suitable choices about their daily lives and activities. We saw staff spoke with people in a respectful manner, treated them with courtesy and respect. For example taking time to sit and speak with them. We saw two people being supported by staff during lunchtime were served their food promptly and were offered support in eating when needed. We found that people's ability to consent to their care was being assessed, and care plans were agreed by people who used the service or their representatives.

People we spoke with told us, 'I am happy here, I have settled well all things considered'. 'The staff look after me well, they are all very nice'.

We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. This was because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify potential abuse and acted appropriately.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. Staff received appropriate professional development.

People did not experience care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We received anonymous concerns about staff not respecting confidentiality and hygiene concerns about a pet rabbit being accommodated on Rosebud unit. Feedback from relatives was mixed about the care their loved ones received.

The home was clean, tidy and well maintained. Regular safety and maintenance checks were being carried out to make sure that the premises were safe and suitable for people's needs.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

There was generally a good quality monitoring system in place. This included involving people in an annual survey.

We spoke with six staff and the manager, and looked at records about four people, records about staff and the running of the home. People were involved in care planning but assessments could reflect more on their individual preferences and diversity. Staff worked with health specialists when necessary and regularly monitored people's health and wellbeing. The home was clean and people were protected from infections by high standards of hygiene.

The provider carried out checks and made sure that staff were safe and fit for their roles. Staff had professional development in order to meet people's needs. Systems in place were used to act upon and learn from any safeguarding concern, incidents or complain