We carried out a review of the data available to us about St Benedicts Ferndale House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about St Benedicts Ferndale House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Alternative communication arrangements were made so people could maintain relationships with relatives and friends. Staff actively supported people to keep in touch with those who could not visit the care home by telephone and using video calls.
Measures were in place to prevent people from spreading infection when admitting a person to the service from a health, social care service or community setting. The service was following the required testing and isolation periods (if required).
Staff had ongoing training in infection control and effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE). They had an accessible file to refer to with all policies and the latest up to date guidance on testing and visiting.
The service had developed a good testing regime for people, staff and visitors. They had a record of all staff’s vaccinations to show they were compliant with this being a condition of employment. Similarly, they had a process in place to check any visiting professionals had been vaccinated and were testing for COVID-19.
The provider's IPC policy was up to date.
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. People were free to leave the home when they wanted, there were no restrictions in place.
People told us staff talked to them about how to stay safe in the home and in the community. They told us if they had any concerns they would talk with staff. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and how to report their concerns internally and externally to local safeguarding authorities.
People told us they knew what risks were involved when they were in the home, doing activities or accessing the community. Risk assessments were in place to identify possible risks to people`s health and well-being and measures were implemented to manage the risks.
There were enough staff to meet people`s needs.
Care plans were well developed and personalised to give guidance to staff on how to support people effectively. People were encouraged to eat a health balanced diet. They had regular heath checks and staff supported them to attend their regular health appointments.
People told us staff were kind and caring and helped them. People`s personal information was kept confidential.
People were involved in discussions about their care and had regular meetings with their allocated staff member to review their mental health.
Staff received training in subjects considered mandatory by the provider and had further opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge.
People`s dignity and privacy was promoted and respected by staff. Staff enabled people to maintain and develop relationships and stay safe.
People were encouraged to engage in activities, pursue hobbies and interests and socialise. Opportunities were created by the provider for people from all their services to get together regularly and participate in workshops they were interested in.
The provider`s governance systems and processes were effective and identified areas of the service where improvements were needed. The registered manager and the provider completed regular audits to ensure the service provided to people was effective and safe.
Rating at last inspection: Requires Improvement.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service improved to good overall.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
St Benedicts is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
St Benedicts is providing care and nursing for men who are living with mental health issues and or dementia. The service can accommodate 18 people there were 14 people living there when we inspected.
The service requires 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. At the time of the inspection there was no registered manager. The manager had applied for their police check and told us when they received this they would make an application to CQC to be registered. They will be referred to as ‘the manager’ throughout this report.
The last inspection was April 2017 when the service was rated Good overall. We brought forward this inspection as we had received significant concerns about the service.
From the information we received before the inspection, we were able to see that the home was making progress in making the necessary changes. The goal was then to maintain the changes and embed good practice into the home.
There were arrangements in place for the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons were learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service. However, these needed to be more robust and embedded into everyday practice.
People were safeguarded from avoidable harm. Staff adhered to safeguarding adults procedures and reported any concerns to their manager and the local authority.
People told us they felt safe. Risks were assessed to minimise them and staff were aware of people's individual risks. People received their medicines safely and they had their nutritional and health needs met. Emergency systems had been put in place to keep people, visitors and staff safe.
Staffing levels ensured that people's care and support needs were safely met and safe recruitment processes were in place.
Systems were in place to ensure the premises were kept clean and hygienic so that people were protected by the prevention and control of infection.
People’s needs and choices were assessed and their care provided in line with up to date guidance and best practice. They received care from staff that had received training and support to carry out their roles.
People were assisted to make healthy choices to maintain their health and well-being.
Staff supported people to attend appointments with healthcare professionals. The service worked with other organisations to ensure that people received coordinated and person-centred care and support.
People’s diverse needs were met by the adaptation, design and decoration of premises and they were involved in decisions about their environment. Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and they gained people's consent before providing personal care.
Staff were caring and compassionate and people were relaxed in staff company. People were treated with dignity and respect and staff ensured their privacy was maintained. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided and staff had a good understanding of people's needs and preferences.
People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in the way that people chose and preferred. Care plans were person centred and reflected how people’s needs were to be met. Records showed that people and their relatives were involved in the assessment process and the on-going reviews of their care. They were supported to take part in activities which they wanted to do, within the service and the local community. There was a complaints procedure in place to enable people to raise complaints about the service.
The service had an open culture which encouraged communication and learning. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to ensure continuous improvement. Staff were motivated to perform their roles and worked to empower people to be as independent as possible.
The manager had not always adhered to the requirements of their Care Quality Commission registration, of submitting notifications about key events that occurred. A programme of audits and checks were in place to monitor the quality of the service and improvements were made where required. The service had changed, according to staff, for the better and now these changes needed to be embedded into every day practice.
We found one breach of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
There was a registered manager 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. However, the registered manager had not been at the service since January 2017 when they had visited the service once.
The provider has employed a new manager who has been working at the service since the start of January 2017. A handover was due to take place but this has not occurred. The new manager has been managing the home for the two months prior to the inspection and they are referred to as the manager throughout the report. They have applied to be registered and are awaiting their interview.
People told us they felt safe and happy living at the home. Risks to people's health conditions were assessed to minimise them; staff were aware of people's individual risks People were supported by adequate numbers of staff.
People received their medicines safely and they had their nutritional and health needs meet.
People's consent was sought before staff provided care.
Staff were undertaking a variety of training to meet people's needs. People were relaxed and comfortable around staff and had their dignity and privacy respected. People were supported to be as independent as possible. People had been involved in developing their care plans and were supported to follow their interests and hobbies. People told us if they had any concerns they had been dealt with appropriately.
The manager had introduced quality systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. This included gathering feedback from people who used the service. People and staff felt listened to by the manager and found them to be approachable and friendly.
People benefited from a service that was well led. The manager and provider had an open, honest and transparent management style.