St Benets Court is a care home in Newton Abbot which provides personal care for up to 32 older people who require care and support due to a physical or sensory disability or due to living with dementia. Nursing care is provided by the local community nursing team.
This inspection took place on 26 and 27 August 2015 and was unannounced. There were 28 people living in the home at the time of the inspection. Although this is a well-established home, this was the home’s first inspection since registering under Coastal Care Homes Ltd.
The home had a registered manager who was present throughout the two days of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.’
People told us they felt safe living at the home. One person said “completely” and another said “definitely” when asked if they felt safe living at St Benets Court. For people who were not able to tell us, we observed how staff interacted with them. We saw people smiling and taking hold of staff’s hands when talking to them, indicating they felt safe in the staff’s company.
There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. We saw staff sitting and talking to people and people being assisted unhurriedly.
Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding people from abuse, people’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, as well as risks to people’s health and welfare resulting from their care needs. These risks were managed well through assessment and regular reviews. Staff knew how and to whom to report any concerns they may have. Where accidents and incidents had taken place, the registered manager reviewed how these had come about to ensure risks were minimised. A member of staff had taken on the role of “fracture champion” to identify people at risk of falling. People’s medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.
People and their relatives told us staff were skilled to meet people’s needs and spoke positively about the care and support provided. One person told us “the staff are very good, they’re lovely. I have everything I need.” One relative said “we are very confident her needs are taken care of. This is a very nice home and the staff are lovely.”
Staff told us they were very well supported in their role and they received regular training events as well as supervision and appraisals of their work performance. Robust recruitment practices ensured, as far as possible, only suitable staff were employed at the home. Newly employed staff members were required to complete an induction programme and were not permitted to work unsupervised until they had completed this training and been assessed as competent to work alone. Staff meetings enabled staff to share information and contribute to the way the home was managed.
People told us they enjoyed the meals provided by the home and they could have drinks and snacks whenever they wished. The chef confirmed they made extra meals each day to allow individual meals to be frozen. This gave people a wide variety of choice, rather than just something that was easy to prepare such as a baked potato or sandwiches, should they not wish to have the main meal prepared that day. One person told us “they make me what I fancy at the time.” The dining room and one of the lounge rooms were used to serve meals, although people could take meals in their rooms if they wished. A member of staff with an interest in the nutritional needs of older people had taken on the role of “nutritional champion” within the home. This member of staff discussed people’s nutritional needs with them, undertook assessments, monitored their weight and liaised with health care professionals.
People told us they saw their GP promptly if they needed to do so. The registered manager explained the GP held a surgery in the home every two weeks, but they saw people outside of that time whenever needed. People, when necessary, received support from the community nursing service, for example with monitoring their blood glucose levels. One community nurse told us “the home is second to none. I would recommend this home.” They said the staff knew the residents well, had the skills to meet their needs and were always very helpful when they visited.
People spoke highly of the care they received. They, and their relatives, told us the staff were always kind, caring and friendly: comments included “it’s lovely here, the girls are very kind” and “they are so friendly here.” People told us staff treated them with respect and dignity when providing personal care.
Staff provided a caring and relaxed environment. Throughout our observations there were positive interactions between staff and people. Staff demonstrated empathy and compassion for the people they supported. They told us they enjoyed working at the home. One staff member said, “I absolutely love my job, I’m proud to work here” and another, “this is the best move I made to work here.”
This kindness and compassion was evident from the comments relatives made about the care their loved ones had received at the end of their lives. A recent letter from one family member said “you are outstanding in end of life care and we much appreciate it.” One member of staff told us, “caring for people who are dying is a privilege.”
People were encouraged and supported to maintain relationships with their relatives and others who were important to them. Visiting times were not restricted; people were welcome at any time. One person told us, “I have family and friends who come whenever they want.”
People were able to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and we saw people’s needs were clearly recorded in an individual care plan. These care plans contained several documents which provided staff with information about what the person could continue to do for themselves, how to support their independence and how people wished to receive assistance.
A programme of different group activities such as arts and crafts, music and singing, flower arranging, church visits, baking and exercise were planned several times a week, and staff involved people in one to one and group activities each day. During our visit we saw people participating in a music session, singing and playing musical instruments, as well as individual activities with staff such as spending time in the garden, word searches and manicures. On the second day of our inspection, the home was holding a summer fete and people enjoyed live musical entertainment, a BBQ and various stalls selling clothes, shoes, jewellery, and cakes.
People and their relatives told us the home was well managed. One person told us “You can’t improve on the place; I don’t know anybody who is dissatisfied.” A relative said, “I have never had a problem. They even ring me up to tell me how my relative is doing.” Staff were also very supportive of the management of the home, saying, “I am really happy working here. I have worked with the manager before and we are a good team.” The registered manager told us they had an ‘open door’ policy for people, their relatives and staff. A relative told us the registered manager was “very approachable.”
The registered manager held a regular ‘Manager’s Tea’ afternoon, where people and their relatives could meet with the manager to discuss any issues they wished. They also held formal meetings, the minutes of which showed people were able to make requests, for example about menu planning and leisure and social activities, and these had been arranged. People and relatives were aware how to make a complaint and all felt they would have no problem raising any issues. One person told us “I have never had to complain about anything.”