Bennett House

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 service since it changed provider in September 2023. 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.

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.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored which helped to identify any themes or trends. Any learning from events was shared with staff and measures were put in place to reduce the risk of the incident happening again. For example, 1 person had experienced a high number of falls when mobilising, so an appointment was made for them to see a physiotherapist. Another person who was at high risk of falls was provided with a sensor mat to alert staff that they had got out of bed during the night. There was a clear commitment from management to support learning through regular training, competency assessments, and access to guidance.
 

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.

Staff worked in partnership with relevant health and social care professionals to ensure timely and appropriate information was shared when people were admitted, transferred, or discharged from the home. This helped to promote continuity of care and reduced the risk of avoidable harm. Care records and assessments were up-to-date and helped support safe decision making when people moved between services. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and risks, and there was evidence care plans were adjusted promptly in response to changes in people’s health or circumstances. For example, we saw one person’s care plan had been updated following a visit from the GP.
 

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 who were able to communicate with us told us they felt safe living at the home and with the staff who supported them. One person said, “I like it here. I’m comfortable. The staff are kind and caring and I feel safe here. They’re very nice.” A relative told us, “I couldn’t be happier. I have no worries about how [person] is cared for and knowing they are safe.” People looked relaxed and comfortable in their surroundings. Staff had received training about safeguarding adults from abuse, and they knew how and when to report concerns. A member of staff said, “I have reported concerns in the past and these were taken very seriously.” Safeguarding policies were up to date and aligned with local authority procedures.
 

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.

Risks to people were assessed and a plan of care was in place to guide staff how to support people in a safe way. These included risks associated with skin integrity, eating and drinking, falls and managing periods of distress. People were supported by staff who knew the individual risks and assisted them in the least restrictive way possible whilst minimising the potential for harm. Staff told us they had access to people’s care plans and risk assessments which were easy to follow. They told us any changes to people’s needs were communicated to them through daily handovers and staff meetings.
 

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People lived in a comfortable environment, and each person had their own bedroom which they could personalise in accordance with their tastes and preferences. There was a refurbishment and redecoration programme in place which was on-going. New garden furniture had been ordered and there were plans in place to improve the garden areas. There were regular checks on the environment and equipment used by people to ensure they remained safe. Regular servicing was carried out by external contractors on moving and handling equipment, fire alarms and detection systems. An up-to-date fire risk assessment was in place and there were contingency plans to manage unforeseen events.
 

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.

People were supported by enough staff who had the skills and training to meet their needs. A relative told us, “There seems to be a good level of staff. There is always a senior and at least 2 care staff and there are only 9 people on the unit.” A health care professional said, “Staff appear competent and have the necessary skills to deliver care.” Staffing levels were based on the needs and number of people who lived at the home and were kept under review. We observed a good staff presence during our visit and people did not have to wait long for assistance. The provider’s procedures for staff recruitment ensured they were recruited safely. References and a check with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) were carried out before staff worked with people. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff received regular training appropriate to their role and there were regular checks on their performance and knowledge to ensure they remained skilled and competent. All new staff received a period of induction which gave them the skills and knowledge and training to meet people’s needs. New staff worked alongside more experienced staff during their induction to enable them to get to know the people they would be supporting.
 

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.

People were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection because staff followed the provider’s procedures and best practice. All areas of the home were clean and smelt fresh. Staff attended to any spillages straight away. Staff were observed using personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons appropriately. Handwashing facilities and sanitising gel were appropriately sited throughout the home. An infection, prevention and control policy was in place which was regularly reviewed to ensure it reflected current guidance and best practice. Staff had received training in infection, prevention and control. Cleaning schedules were completed daily to ensure good hygiene standards were maintained. Designated cleaning staff were employed.
 

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Medicines were stored securely, with appropriate arrangements for controlled drugs, refrigeration where required, and regular temperature checks to ensure medicines remained effective. Records relating to medicines were well maintained, clear, and up to date. Protocols were in place for ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines, providing staff with clear guidance on when these should be administered. This helped to ensure consistency and reduced the risk of inappropriate use. There were effective systems for ordering, receiving, and disposing of medicines safely. Regular audits were undertaken to identify any discrepancies or areas for improvement. Staff responsible for administering medicines had received appropriate training and competency assessments. They demonstrated a good understanding of safe administration practices, including checking people’s identity, confirming allergies, and supporting people in line with their individual needs and preferences. Staff wore red tabards when administering medicines to ensure they were not disturbed. This helped to reduce the risk of errors.