You are here

Archived: Benfield Hall Nursing Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 June 2016

The inspection took place on 4 and 5 May 2016 and was unannounced.

Benfield Hall provides accommodation for people who need nursing and personal care. The service can accommodate up to 20 people, 18 of which live in the home on a permanent basis and two rooms are kept for people who require respite care. This was the first time Benfield Hall had been inspected since the new provider Jigsaw Care Limited bought the home.

A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The manager of the service had applied to the CQC to be registered and was awaiting further contact from the commission.

We found the registered provider carried out appropriate checks on people before they started working in the service. This meant the service had in place a robust recruitment procedure.

The registered provider had in place arrangements to carry out safety checks on the building at varying intervals. For example fire alarm checks were carried out weekly whilst portable alarm testing was carried out each year. Maintenance contracts were in place for the lift and the testing of gas and electrical supplies.

People had in place personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) which detailed how people needed to be supported to leave the building in an emergency.

We found there was enough staff on duty during our inspection.

The communal areas of the home were found to be clean and fresh. People were encouraged to keep their own rooms tidy and support was offered from staff to help people if required.

People chose their food from a menu which they had contributed to. We found if one person did not like what was on the menu kitchen staff were prepared to arrange a different alternative meal for them.

We found the manager had put in place communications systems in the home to support improved communication between staff and also between staff and relatives.

Staff told us they felt supported by the manager. Staff had received an induction to the service together with training, supervision and annual appraisals.

We found the registered provider had carried out improvements to both the interior and exterior of the home. People were protected from second hand smoke as a new gazebo had been built in the gardens for people who wished to smoke.

People who used the service were invited to attend a monthly residents meeting where they were asked for their views, their menu preferences and activities they would like to do.

The service supported people to be independent through the use of a communal kitchen, support to keep their rooms clean and tidy and assessments to decide how much a person could be responsible for their own medicines.

We observed staff knock on people’s doors and waited for a response before they entered. Staff respected people’s privacy.

We found people had in place personalised care plans. This meant people’s care plans were written specifically for them and took into account their needs.

The service used the Recovery Star Model to assess with people their needs. The model looks at different aspects of people’s lives and asks people to score themselves. Staff also had scored people and there had been discussions held with people about their needs. People were therefore involved in their care plans.

The registered provider had in place a complaints process. We saw the manager had carried out investigations into people’s complaints and responded to the complainant with an outcome. This meant people could be reassured their complaints were investigated.

People spoke with us in very positive terms about the manager and described them as “Lovely” and “Fantastic.”

The manager had monitored the quality of the service using questionnaires. They ha

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 June 2016

The service was safe.

Staff had received training in safeguarding and told us they felt confident in reporting any concerns to the manager.

People were given their medicines in a safe manager. Staff were checked on annual basis to ensure they were competent to administer people�s medicines.

We saw the registered provider carried out safety checks in the home.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 June 2016

The service was effective.

People influenced the menu and were given a choice of meals.

Staff told us they received regular supervision. The manager had in place a training matrix which showed staff had received training and the training was updated according to the programme put in place by the registered provider.

People who smoked were requested to use an outside gazebo. This meant people using the service were protected from second hand smoke.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 June 2016

The service was caring.

People were invited to a monthly meeting and were asked about aspects of the service. We found evidence to indicate people�s involvement in the service had influenced menus.

Staff treated people with respect and kindness.

We found staff respected people�s privacy and knocked on their bedroom doors before entering.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 June 2016

The service was responsive.

People had personalised care plans in place informed by staff using the Recovery Star Model of assessing needs.

We saw staff highlighted in people�s daily notes information appertaining to care plans. Staff then used the highlighted section to review people�s care plans on a regular basis.

The manager had carried out investigations into people�s complaints. People who had complained received information from the manager about the outcome of their investigation.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 June 2016

The service was well led.

We found the service had in place a network of other professionals who offered advice and support to staff working in the service. Their advice had been incorporated into people�s care plans.

The manager had put into place a service improvement plan after collating the results of surveys they had used to monitor the service.

We found the manager had carried out audits which measured the activities in the service. The manager�s comments on the audits indicated they had paid attention to detail.