Archived: Bennerley Fields Centre

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

We spoke to 8 people and 9 relatives.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the standard of care they received at Bennerley Fields Centre. People told us staff and leaders were caring and attentive, responding quickly to meet their needs. People were appreciative of the intensive support they received to recover from injuries or illnesses which had limited their mobility.

People told us they enjoyed the spacious and comfortable environment, and enjoyed the food and the choices available.

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 learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider kept clear records of any falls and medication errors. These were analysed for any concerning themes and trends, and measures were put in place to mitigate any risks identified. For example, if a person had a fall, the provider discussed this with their wider multi-disciplinary team (MDT). They looked into ways of supporting them to prevent a recurrence, such as putting sensor mats in place to detect if the person had got out of bed, or increasing observations for that person. Additional supervisions, training and observation from senior staff were put in place for staff if errors occurred, for example with medicine management.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Leaders told us the rapid turnaround of admissions to the service meant clear communication was vital. This included communicating with acute hospital settings to ensure new admissions were thoroughly risk assessed and had a care plan in place prior to admission, and liaising with community teams to ensure support was in place when people were ready to be discharged home.

Systems were in place to ensure people’s safety. Care notes were completed consistently by all staff, giving detail of any concerns relating to each person. This allowed the provider to give a detailed and accurate handover to health and social care services who would be providing care and support once the person had moved on from the service. Handover meetings were held at the beginning of each shift which were well attended by staff to ensure continuity of care.

Staff and leaders told us having physiotherapy, occupational therapy and community teams on site meant planning for discharges was made easier because the teams worked alongside each other and understood how each other worked. This gave people confidence they had the correct support in place for when they returned home, or moved to another provider.

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.

There were clear processes in place for reporting safeguarding concerns which staff and leaders demonstrated a knowledge of. People told us that they felt safe. Relatives told us they were happy that their family members were safe.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding protocols and told us how they would raise a concern if they needed to. Staff told us they felt safe and supported to raise concerns.

Leaders gave us examples of safeguarding concerns they had submitted to the local authority and demonstrated an awareness of the type of concerns which CQC need to be notified of. Safeguarding concerns were discussed with the person and their relatives if appropriate, showing a person-centred approach to safeguarding.

None of the people at the care home required a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DOLS) authorisation, but staff and leaders understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and DOLS legislation and the criteria for when a DOLS authorisation would need to be applied for.

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.

When creating their care plan upon admission, staff asked people to identify their support goals. As part of this process people were asked to identify any risks that they could think of which were related to their goal. Risks were identified in the care plan using positive language which encouraged people to focus on what they needed to do to mitigate the risk rather than what could go wrong if they didn’t. Staff also calculated risk by using a scoring system which calculated a person’s needs and risk of harm in each area of their care, allowing them to ensure that people were kept safe.

The provider aimed to create care plans with people’s involvement within 24 hours of their arrival. Leaders told us relatives would also be involved in this process if people gave consent. If people were unable to give consent, staff would follow the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to assess the person’s capacity to make a decision about sharing the care plan with relatives.

Staff supported people to mobilise safely without doing things for them which they could do for themselves – using words of encouragement to prompt them. Staff were knowledgeable about the specific mobility needs of each person and adapted the level and nature of support to meet their needs and manage risk.

The provider liaised with other professionals involved in people’s care to ensure they were ready to manage their own potential risks independently in the community. For example, a community nurse visited a person to show them how to self-administer some medication which they would need to take when they were at home without the support of staff. External professionals were encouraged to write handover notes after visiting people to ensure important information about their care was communicated to staff. This helped ensure staff encouraged people to follow the advice, about managing their own risks, based on guidance from external healthcare professionals.

The provider was fully aware of all potential risks in the care environment and controlled them well. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Regular environment checks were carried out and these checks were audited and recorded in the provider’s electronic records.

The building was purpose-built as a care home, with wide corridors and spacious bedrooms and communal areas. The large rooms meant that furniture could be spaced out around the room with plenty of space for wheelchairs or mobility aids such as walking frames.

Clear glass dividing walls in the corridors and offices meant that there were no blind spots in communal areas, allowing staff to ensure the safety of people by generally observing them, without having to be in close proximity to them.

The building had inbuilt air-conditioning, with individual controls in each bedroom and communal areas, ensuring the temperature of the environment could be controlled.

One person told us “This is a beautiful place, very clean and very safe.”

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 that met people’s individual needs

There were sufficient staff on each shift to keep people safe, with a mix of permanent and agency staff being used. Leaders told us the provider was in the process of recruiting and inducting more permanent staff members to reduce the reliance on agency and permanent staff taking on additional hours. The provider were able to call on staff from their other locations to provide cover for shifts. Leaders told us that staff from other locations who covered shifts were familiar with the policies and procedures and many had worked at the provider previously. Leaders also told us that most of the agency staff they used were familiar with the service, and received a full induction before they were signed off to work shifts. We saw staff had the skills and experience to care for people well.

Staff were observed supporting people to mobilise safely using various equipment such as wheelchairs and rotundas. Staff were knowledgeable and compassionate in the way they interacted with people and told us they felt that they had adequate training to support people safely.

Staff were adequately trained to fulfil their roles. The staff we spoke with and observed were skilled and interacted positively with people when providing care and support.

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.

The building was clean and tidy, and there were sufficient cleaning staff to maintain the cleanliness of the building.

A member of the cleaning staff described the high standards they set themselves for cleaning each bedroom, stating they took pride in ensuring they were kept to a “Hotel standard” on a daily basis.

Medicines were well managed and met people’s needs, with regular reviews of people’s prescribed medicine by the provider’s Enhanced Care Practitioner – a professional with enhanced clinical skills and experience. GPs also visited on a regular basis and reviewed people’s medication as part of their individual review of a person’s health needs. Daily administration of people’s prescribed medicine was carried out by trained senior care workers. Senior care workers were knowledgeable about medicines and the processes in place to safely store and administer people’s prescribed medicine.

The clinic room and drugs trolley were clean and well organised. People’s individually prescribed medicines were administered and recorded using a Medication Administration Record (MAR) chart. Information in the MAR was up to date, with clear instructions on how and when to administer each person’s prescribed medicines.

Medicines audits were carried out on a regular basis by senior carers, with leaders have oversight of the audits. Medicine administration errors were used as learning events to prevent the issue reoccurring. People were involved in their medicine reviews and the creation of their medicine care plans.