Bennett House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
This is the first assessment for this service since it changed provider in September 2023. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received care that was responsive to their individual needs and preferences. Records showed care plans were personalised, reflecting people’s choices, routines, and life histories, and were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained up to date. Relatives told us they felt staff knew their loved one well. One said, “The staff know [relative] really well and what is important to them. They also know how to calm them down. They put their favourite music on. They really know the residents.” People were provided with a varied activity programme. On the day of our visit many people were enjoying a keep fit session. This was known as the ‘fit4all’ initiative which linked up with other homes each week and was streamed on a large screen. A relative said, “[Relative] never used to do anything at home. They were never interested in activities but now they have a new lease of life. I don’t know what they do here, but [relative] now goes to the keep fit class. They’ve [staff] got a way of dealing with them and we’re shocked at just what they do now.” Another relative told us, “[Relative] is taken out of the home once a week and goes to her own hairdresser at least once a month.” We observed staff delivering care in a flexible and responsive way, adapting support to meet people’s changing needs and preferences. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of individuals and how to provide care that was meaningful to them.
 

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service worked effectively with external professionals, including GPs, community teams, and other services, to ensure people received joined-up care. Records demonstrated information was shared appropriately, supporting continuity and safe care delivery.
We observed staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and routines, which helped ensure care was delivered consistently. Staff told us clear communication systems, such as handovers and care records, supported them to stay informed about any changes.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communications needs were assessed before they moved to the home and were clearly set out in a care plan which was regularly reviewed. Staff knew people well and understood how best to communicate with them. We observed staff took time to explain information and checked people’s understanding. The registered manager told us information would be provided in appropriate formats to meet people’s needs such as large print or pictures.
 

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Relatives were encouraged to contribute to care planning and reviews, particularly where people lacked capacity. Staff worked collaboratively with families and other professionals to ensure people’s needs and preferences were understood and respected. Systems were in place to handle complaints and concerns. People and their relatives knew how to raise issues, and records showed these were taken seriously, investigated promptly, and used as opportunities for learning and improvement. A relative told us, “I don’t have any concerns. If I did, I would certainly raise them with [registered manager].”
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The building was purpose built and was divided into 4 units all at ground floor level. People had access to their bedrooms, a kitchenette, dining and lounge space. Each unit had access to a secure garden area which were in the process of refurbishment as was the environment in each unit. The environment had been designed to support people living with dementia. For example, toilets were fitted with a contrasting colour seat, and toilet doors and grab rails had been painted in contrasting colours. Weekly menus and activities were displayed but these could be confusing for people living with dementia. We shared this feedback with the registered manager who agreed to reintroduce daily menus displayed on tables. People had access to a call bell so they could ring for assistance when needed. Leaders liaised with local surgeries and organised for a GP to come into the service for people to be seen in their room. Other healthcare professionals were also available for people who struggled to leave the service.
 

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People experienced care and support that was equitable, inclusive, and tailored to their individual needs. Staff had received training about equality and diversity and understood the importance of recognising and respecting people's diverse backgrounds, identities, and life experiences, ensuring care was delivered without discrimination. Assessments and care plans identified people's cultural, religious, communication, and health needs, which enabled staff to provide care that reflected individual preferences. People were supported to maintain their identity, relationships, and interests, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of what was important to them. Reasonable adjustments were made where required to support people with disabilities, sensory impairments, or communication needs.
 

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

There was nobody receiving end of life care however staff had the information needed to ensure people’s wishes and preferences were respected. Care plans contained important information for staff to ensure people’s wishes and preferences were respected. Care plans showed how people were supported in line with any advance decisions they had been involved in, such as those made in their ‘Recommended Summary for Emergency Care and Treatment’ (ReSPECT) forms and ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR) decisions. ReSPECT forms are a personalised document containing recommendations for a person’s clinical care in a future emergency if they are not able to make decisions or express their wishes at that time. They include whether, along with DNACPR forms, in the event such as if a person’s heart stops or they stop breathing, they would want Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) to be completed or not. Having people’s wishes clearly known for their future care helped to ensure their rights were upheld. Medicines to help ensure people remained comfortable and received appropriate pain relief, should they commence on end-of-life care, were held in stock where it was anticipated people may need them at some future point. Having these needs anticipated and the relevant medicines available meant there was no delay in ensuring a person’s comfort should their health deteriorate.