You are here

Archived: Bentley Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 11 November 2016

Bentley Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and support for up to 58 adults who require support with their mental and physical health. At the time of the inspection 39 people were living at the home and one person was in hospital.

The building is converted from three large Victorian houses divided into two units. These are known as 'the house' and 'the unit'. People have their own bedroom and share bathroom and shower facilities. Each unit has sitting and dining facilities for people to share.

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 15 September 2016. We carried out this inspection at this time as the home was in special measures and had been rated inadequate and we needed to check that improvements had been made to the quality and safety of the service.

We had carried out a comprehensive inspection of this home in September 2015 as a result of which the home was rated inadequate and was placed into special measures. A second comprehensive inspection of the home in March 2016 again rated the home as inadequate and they remained in special measures. In July 2016 we carried out a focused inspection of the home and found that improvements had been made in some areas.

At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in all areas but further improvements were needed to meet regulations in regard to ensuring the care and treatment of service users met their needs and reflected their preferences and that risks to the health and safety of service users are been adequately assessed and action taken to mitigate and identified risks.

In response to the improvements that had been made we have taken the home out of special measures.

People’s legal rights were not always protected. Assessments of people’s capacity to make important decisions had not always been undertaken to establish whether they needed the protection of a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard.

Up to date care plans and risk assessments were not in place for everyone living at the home. This meant staff did not always have up to date guidance to support people safely and well. A new care plan format had commenced and provided detailed information about people which helped staff provided a more person centred approach to care. However not everybody had these care plans in place.

No organised activities took place at the home and people told us that they were often bored. An activities co-ordinator was due to commence working at the home shortly.

Staff did not always recognise when people needed support and provide it in a timely manner. At times staff congregated in communal areas rather than spending time interacting with people living at the home.

People told us that they felt safe living at the home. Potential safeguarding concerns had been recognised and addressed. Staff had an understanding of safeguarding adult’s procedures and their role in protecting people.

There were sufficient staff working at the home to support people. People living at the Bentley told us they liked the staff who worked there and we saw some warm interactions between staff and people they supported.

Staff had received support and supervision and felt listened to by the senior management team. Training had been delivered to staff to enable them to understand and carry out their role effectively and more specialist training was being planned. Robust procedures had been followed to recruit staff who were suitable to work with people who may be vulnerable.

Systems were being introduced for gaining the views of people living at the home and their relatives. People told us they felt listened to and we saw that action was taken in response to people’s comments. Similarly complaints were listened to, investigated and appropriate action taken on the findings.

People received the support they needed with their healthcare and with their medication.

A choice of meals was always available including meals that met dietary, cultural or religious preferences. Peop

Inspection areas



Updated 11 November 2016

The service was safe.

Potential safeguarding concerns were recognised and addressed. The staff team had received training in understanding safeguarding adults and the procedures to follow.

Sufficient staff worked at the home to support people living there.

The environment was safe for people living and working there.

Medication was managed safely.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 November 2016

The service was always not effective.

People�s legal rights were not always protected.

Improvements were being made to the environment to make the home a more pleasant place to live.

Staff received the training, support and supervision they needed to enable them to support people safely.

People received meals that were of a good quality and met their cultural and religious beliefs.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 November 2016

The service was not always caring.

Staff did not always observe or respond to people�s needs swiftly.

People told us that they liked living at Bentley and liked the staff team.

Systems were in place for communicating with people whose first language was not English and for gaining people�s views of the service they received.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 November 2016

The service was not always responsive

Not all care plans were accurate, up to date or reviewed.

There were no organised activities at the home and people told us they were bored.

A system was in place for listening to and responding to concerns and complaints.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 November 2016

The service was not always well led.

The home did not have a registered manager in post. An appointed manager was in post and had applied to register with CQC.

A system for quality assurance had been introduced within the home. This was an honest assessment of the home that acknowledged the improvements required.

People liked the new manager and provider�s representative and felt their views were listened to.