Benkhill Lodge

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 66 (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 learned to continually identify and embed good practice.

Learning was shared across provider locations with regular meetings taking place to share good practice and learn from incidents.The manager was responsive to concerns raised taking prompt action as required and sharing, where appropriate,the outcome and lessons learned with the staff team.

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 service ensured preadmission assessments were effective,working well with professionals to ensure a smooth transition between services.This included the use of hospital passports when people were admitted to hospital.

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.

People we spoke to told us they felt safe and would be comfortable raising concerns to staff. We saw how one person had raised a concern about interactions they were unhappy with and how the service worked with them to resolve this.

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.However, risk assessments were not always regularly reviewed and updated.The manager assured us this would be reviewed and acted up on.We saw how people were supported to take positive risks with their choices respected.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. However, the service had recently had a full redecoration,and some routine health and safety and fire checks of the environment had not taken place in line with the time frames set out by the provider. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans were not always accurate and consistent, due to recent room moves when work was being completed. The manager assured us this would be addressed immediately.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified,skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support,supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care.

The service completed a dependency tool to work out safe staffing levels across the service and these levels were met.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

One relative told us, “It’s so much better now it’s been painted”.A person we spoke with said, “They (staff) clean my bedroom everyday”. We observed the home to be clean and tidy throughout.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were managed and stored safely and met people’s needs and capacities.

Medication checks were not always effective in identifying medicines that were out of date or incorrectly labelled.We found that medication administration records were not always completed correctly or in line with best practice. Where people were prescribed variable doses or medication to take as and when required, guidance for staff was not always in place.Audits were regularly completed and some issues had been identified;however, actions were not clearly documented to ensure completion. No harm was caused to people because of the issues identified and the manager took action to address the shortfalls we identified immediately. Medicines were given on time and in a way that people preferred.