Benson House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People told us staff were caring. Comments included, “The carers [staff] are brilliant” and “I really enjoy spending time with staff, they are really caring and look after me.” We found staff to be kind, respectful and patient. We observed staff respecting people’s privacy by knocking on bedroom doors and greeting people warmly.

Staff spoke with care and compassion about the people they supported and demonstrated a shared commitment to providing good care.

Staff treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics, such as religious beliefs and disability were reflected in care records.

Care staff understood people’s preferences and wishes. Care plan information to support staff to ensure people’s needs and preferences were understood, were good. There were detailed individual plans which gave a good, rounded picture of the person.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People who had the capacity to choose felt they had control over day-to-day choices. The provider and staff had built up good relationships with families, so they had a good understanding of what preferences people might like, even when they were unable to choose. Care planning set out people preferences in terms of where they wanted to receive care, where possible.

One person told us, “Staff look after me how I would like.”

The provider ensured staff responded promptly, in the moment, when people needed help. Staff listened to people views and wishes and acted on them.

When people changed their minds, for instance at mealtimes, or choosing where they wanted to spend their time, staff were responsive to this. They were patient and helped people communicate their needs.

External professionals raised no concerns about the responsiveness of staff or leaders in terms of their oversight of people’s needs and how they responded to them. Staff made prompt referrals to healthcare professionals when required.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt well supported by leaders. One staff member said, “The deputy manager is really good.”

The provider recognised and acted on the recruitment and retention challenges faced in social care. They did everything practicable to ensure the staff they employed understood the benefits and challenges of working in social care. For example, overseas staff received support with accommodation on arriving in England.

New staff received appropriate induction, supervision, training and support from experienced staff.