Benslow Nursing 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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

There were contingency plans in to be followed during adverse events for example during an evacuation or adverse weather conditions. However, on the first day of this inspection, hot weather red heat health alerts were not being followed. Upon arrival there were no areas kept cool for people, communal lounges were hot with no fans to move the air, with the windows and curtains open. Those rooms that should be kept below 26 degrees Celsius were in excess of 30 degrees Celsius. The provider when informed immediately bought two air conditioning units. When we visited to follow up on this action, both rooms were shaded and below 26 degrees.

Staff were taking room temperatures and peoples body temperatures, although not sufficiently regular to ensure staff identified signs of dehydration swiftly. The provider responded by adding a staff member to the rota to monitor people’s temperatures and continuously encourage fluids and monitor for signs of dehydration.

In red heat alerts, people are encouraged to eat lighter meals or be given an option to do so. People were not offered light choices on the first day of our inspection, but when raised to the provider, we saw on our second visit, a wider variety offered to people. We reported our concerns to Hertfordshire County Council who visited Benslow Nursing Home the following day, alongside two of the other homes operated by the provider. They found the actions arising from this inspection had been implemented across at homes. Although we found no person had experienced harm, people’s health needs, particularly those with diabetes, dementia or other conditions were at risk. On our second visit we found all actions had been taken and this risk was reduced.

People’s rooms were personalised, and communal areas were nicely decorated, clean and hazard free. There was signage around the home to support people to move around freely and safely.

There were effective arrangements to monitor the safety and upkeep of the premises, and the management team completed regular checks. There were appropriate environmental risk assessments when required, for example, in relation to fire safety. Regular safety audits were completed including for utilities and equipment. Legionella testing was ongoing at the time of our visit, and electrical safety checks had been completed. Where concerns were identified records of required actions and outcomes were maintained.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development.

Staff were safely recruited, and checks were carried out before they started work to reduce the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

Staff received training in some areas relevant to their role, for example, care staff completed training around moving and handling, safeguarding, infection control and dementia. Kitchen staff had completed enhanced nutrition training and food safety level 2, but one staff member had yet to complete dysphagia and textures of modified foods and thickened liquids which is used to safely manage swallowing difficulties. The registered manager took immediate action to book staff onto the required training for completion shortly.

Staff received frequent supervision and appraisal and were positive about the support they received. Their competencies were checked three monthly to ensure they were competent to use equipment such as hoists to transfer people safely. Formal observations of personal care were not in place, with the clinical lead telling us this was completed informally, but not as part of ongoing formal supervision. They implemented the changes immediately and provided[TP1] completed examples during the inspection

People as reported gave varying feedback about staffing levels. In response we saw the registered manager and provider had increased staffing by one care staff member and were planning on an additional staff member at the weekends. During this inspection staff and people told us weekends were more pronounced with staff being less available. Care staff carried on their daily care tasks at weekends in addition to answering the door for visitors, providing activities and some kitchen tasks. During the weekday and weekend mornings, and evenings, care staff collected and washed dishes and served the evening meal. This took time away from their core role. The registered manager assured us that the introduction of a staff member at weekends would address those issues. Furthermore, they increased the length of time kitchen staff worked and would seek to appoint an assistant to address the overlap of care staff assisting the kitchen.

Call bells responses were reviewed for June 2026 and these showed staff were responsive when people summoned assistance. Calls were responded to promptly and none were left to trigger an emergency response. The registered manager acknowledged people’s experience and pressures on staff and said they would continue to review staffing and make changes to the allocations and deployment as required.

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

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.