You are here

Archived: Bennett House

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 May 2014
Date of Publication: 2 July 2014
Inspection Report published 02 July 2014 PDF | 88.78 KB


Inspection carried out on 30 May 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out by one inspector. We met with all nine people who used the service and observed their experiences of care to support our inspection. We spoke with the registered manager and three staff.

We were informed by the registered manager during the inspection that the staff were going through a consultation period as the home was going to close due to poor occupancy levels.

The home was split into two units. The first unit was made up of individual bedrooms and shared communal spaces, while the second unit was made up of self-contained units including kitchen, bathroom and bedroom areas. The second unit was designed as the second stage in the recovery process before people left the home and returned to the community.

We were told the service was not normally manned by staff over a weekend and after 6pm.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask:-

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was clean and hygienic. People told us that they were very happy living at the home and were supported to remain independent as safely as possible. They also told us that their needs were met because staff supported them to do the things they wanted to do.

Appropriate risk assessments were in place, and the registered manager had suitable arrangements to safeguard people from foreseeable emergencies.

People told us that they felt safe living at the home. We saw safeguarding procedures were in place and that staff understood how to safeguard the people that they supported. People were protected against the use of unlawful or excessive control or restraint because the provider had made suitable arrangements.

No one at the home was subject to an authorisation made under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

There were regular inspections and audits completed to make sure that the building and procedures were maintained and further improved and provided a safe environment for people to live in.

Is the service effective?

All of the people we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care that was delivered and their needs were met. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they (staff) had a very good understanding of people’s care and support needs and that they knew them well, which meant that people received an effective service. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home.

People who lived at the home told us how they had improved since moving into the service and how much the staff had supported them to achieve their goals.

Is the service caring?

We asked nine people if they had any concerns about the care provided by the home and they told us that were happy with the care provided and that the staff were caring. One person told us, “They saved my life really.”

Observations during the visit showed staff were compassionate and caring to the people they supported. We saw positive interactions taking place and staff responding in a thoughtful and kind manner to people who lived at the home.

Is the service responsive?

Information was collected by the service with regard to the person’s needs and level of independence. Regular reviews were carried out with the person who used the service to make sure the person’s care and support needs had not changed. This helped ensure staff supplied the correct amount of care and support.

Information collected by the service also gave staff an insight into the interests, likes and dislikes and areas of importance to the people in their care.

Regular meetings took place with staff to discuss the running of the service and to ensure the service was responsive in meeting the changing needs of people who used the service.

People who lived at the home held regular meetings with staff to discuss their views on living at the home. This meant that people were involved in communications about the running of the home and staff listened and took action. People we spoke with confirmed they felt that they were listened to and knew who to contact if they had a problem.

Is the service well-led?

The home had a registered manager.

People who used the service had regular contact from the registered manager and other staff to check their wellbeing. The quality of service provided by care givers was monitored and this was done through quality audits and also through meetings arranged with the people who used the service.

Staff were knowledgeable about the support needs of people and the services ethos of maintaining safe independence and involvement of the person whatever their level of need.