Bennethorpe 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 people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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. There were systems and processes in place to record and review accidents and incidents. The registered manager supported a culture of learning and improvement throughout the service.

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. Procedures were in place to ensure people’s transition between services was well-managed. Each person had a hospital passport, which contained important information about them to be shared with medical staff in the event of a hospital admission.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way for this to be achieved. 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. Members of staff attended safeguarding training and had access to regular refresher training. There were systems and processes in place to report any concerns about people’s safety. A member of staff told us, “Yes, we have access to safeguarding policies, and I would report any abuse immediately to my manager. If they didn’t take any action, I would then contact the Council or CQC to report any abuse immediately.”

We saw evidence the provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to review people’s capacity and understanding around receiving care and support. The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs which was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things which mattered to them. People’s care plans were detailed and person-centred. Risks associated with people’s care and support were assessed and appropriate mitigations identified. People’s care was delivered in line with their care plans. A care professional told us, “[People] appear well and happy and enjoying their best life. Care plans were relevant and evaluated regularly.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Reviews and checks of the care environment were regularly completed and reviewed. Risks associated with the care environment were discussed with the registered manager who provided assurances the risks were being managed safely.

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 which met people’s individual needs. People had dedicated care and support to meet their identified care needs. People’s care and support teams were consistent which provided continuity of care and support. Members of staff were recruited safely and pre-employment checks were completed and reviewed.

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 care home was clean and odour free. Recent visits by the NHS infection prevention and control team identified the care home was, “bright, clean and tidy.”

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People’s medicines were managed safely and they received their medicines as prescribed. There were systems and processes in place to audit and review medicine administration processes.