Archived: Bennerley Fields Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider had a checklist in place in each care plan which indicated which care plans needed completing upon arrival, then again within 24 hours of their arrival, and with further checks being carried out after 72 hours of the person’s arrival. Staff communicated effectively with hospital “discharge to assess” teams to ensure they had all the relevant information about a person’s care needs before they arrived at the care home.

Leaders told us about an admission which was challenging because they felt the person’s needs had not been described and identified accurately prior to their discharge from an acute setting. Leaders described the steps they took to safely support the person and ensure that the provider learned from this event, by providing the person with one-to-one staffing and involving the person’s MDT immediately to review their medication and support.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff and leaders understood and complied with the most up to date legislation relating to health and social care. Systems were in place to ensure evidence-based care was provided at all times. Staff knew when to refer people to professionals with specific expertise – for example by involving the speech and language therapy team if a person required support with communicating or dietary needs.

The provider used best practice care tools and treatment to achieve positive outcomes for people. For example, the provider used industry standard systems such as a nutrition tool to monitor people’s weight, with actions in place if there was concerning weight loss or gain. Waterlow charts were used effectively to monitor people who were at risk of skin breakdown.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once.

The provider was run as a partnership between Derbyshire County Council (DCC) and NHS. There were teams of staff from both organisations onsite working closely to deliver outcomes for people. For example, care workers, senior care workers and managers from DCC were working alongside NHS physiotherapists, occupational therapists and an enhanced healthcare practitioner, who were also onsite.

There was a positive atmosphere of teamwork and staff clearly knew each other and understood each other’s roles.

Staff told us communication with Hospitals before people arrived was key to establishing what each person’s needs would be, and ensuring each person would have the right support in place when they arrived.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.
The provider encouraged people to make healthy meal choices by offering a varied menu with two main choices, and alternative options for those who did not want to eat either of the main options.
The onsite physiotherapy and occupational therapy teams worked with people on a daily basis to rehabilitate themselves and regain as much independence as possible. This involved supporting people to mobilise and do exercise to regain their strength, and to carry out activities of daily living such as cooking and cleaning.
There were kitchens onsite where people were encouraged to cook their own food as part of their programmes to regain their skills. Advice was provided to people who were seeking to return to independent living in the community about how to make healthy lifestyle choices.
One relative told us that their family member had several falls when they were at home, but had not fallen since being at the care home. The relative said that this gave the person and their family peace of mind that they were safe.
 

The provider monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care plans and the goals they had set were reviewed with them on a regular basis, so that they could be involved in the process of measuring and improving outcomes for themselves.

In addition to working with people to monitor their progress toward their individual goals, the provider looked at data on outcomes for all people who used the service and matched these against the provider’s own key performance indicators (KPI). This allowed the provider to judge the success of the service and identify any areas where improvement was required.

The provider regularly reviewed the number of safe discharges with their KPI. For example, the provider’s records showed the average length of stay, at the time of our assessment, was 16 days. This was two days above the provider’s KPI of 14 days but was considered by leaders to be “Good and close to the original target”. Leaders told us about complicating factors for discharging people included arranging more complex support in the community, or arranging residential care if a person was unable to return home, particularly if people had a cognitive impairment such as dementia. Leaders told us that sometimes people stayed for longer admissions that ran into several months. – This was due to complexities in arranging care and support packages in the community or seeking a suitable residential placement for the person.

The provider explained to people what their rights around consent were and made sure they fully understood them. We saw staff respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider involved people in the care planning process from the moment they arrived a, and staff gained consent for the support they intended to provide. Decisions were recorded in writing when appropriate, and individual daily choices were offered to people. For example, staff were observed asking people sitting in a communal area where they wanted to sit and eat their dinner, then explaining to them how they intended to support them to mobilise to move them to the dining table. Other people chose to eat dinner in their bedrooms and the staff supported them to do so.

There were recommendedsummaryplanforemergencycareandtreatment (ReSPECT) forms in place for each person, to record people’s decision around whether they wished to be resuscitated or not in a medical emergency. This was recorded in the person’s care plan. The provider also had a system in place which discreetly identified the choice that each person had made around this decision so that staff could know what actions to take in the event of a medical emergency. This meant that staff knew what each person’s wishes were, in case of a medical emergency without having to ask the person or consult their care plan.