You are here

Archived: Bennett House

Reports


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.

Inspection carried out on 3 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We talked with two people who used the service and both said they were happy and content with the service provided at Bennett House. Comments about the overall service included:

“There is a support network for everyone, you can talk to staff who work here about anything.”

And:

“The whole package is brilliant, you can talk to staff about anything and they don’t judge you, they just listen.”

At the previous visit on 17 November 2012 we found that improvements were needed in relation to planning for foreseeable emergencies and the management of medication. At this visit on 03 June 2013 we found improvements had been made, particularly in relation to dealing with foreseeable emergencies.

We found people who used the service were involved in planning their care and support, systems were in place to safeguard vulnerable adults from harm, and the provider made sure the quality of the service was checked so that good standards were maintained or improvements made accordingly.

Inspection carried out on 6 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We talked with people who used the service and they told us they were happy and content with the overall service provided at Bennett House. People said:

“I’m a picky type of person and if I could find fault I would but there isn’t any.”

We found that people were informed about their support and given the opportunity to consent to care and treatment.We were told:

“Everything here is consensual.”

We found people were satisfied with the care and support offered. Comments included:

“I wasn't well the first few days and staff looked after me. The staff are excellent; they’re open and honest and tell it how it is.”

People liked the food and cooking arrangements at Bennett House. Comments included:

“The food was exactly what I needed.”

We found that people living at Bennett House knew how to make a complaint about the service if they wanted to. We were told:

“We are given a booklet telling us our rights and about things like complaining. I gather we would go to the manager and ask for the procedure.”

We found that in the main the service provided at Bennett House met people’s health, emotional and residential needs.

We found that people were aware of how their medication was to be managed at Bennett House because this was discussed and agreed with them. However we also found that systems in place for people who could not self medicate were unsafe and needed to be improved. In addition we found gaps in the services procedure for dealing with missing persons.

Inspection carried out on 7 March 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke to a range of people about the service. They included, the manager,support workers (Counsellors) and people on the programme. We also had responses

from external agencies such as social services in order to gain a balanced overview of

what people experience.

Responses were all positive and reflected how the service is run in the best interest of the people who are receiving care, guidance and support during their stay.

Staff we spoke to had a good awareness of individual care needs and support they needed whilst staying at Bennett House. One staff member said, "It is important to treat people with respect and try and help build self esteem and confidences."

None of the people we spoke with had any concerns or issues about the standard of care, treatment and support they were receiving. People told us that they would be comfortable in raising any concerns they may have in the future.

We spoke to Manchester social services and they have no concerns with the service and have not received any safeguarding alerts recently. The manager told us policies and procedures are in place to follow should any incidents happen.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)