The inspection took place on 23rd May and 5th June 2017 and was unannounced.Bentley Manor is a two-storey purpose-built care home set in its own grounds. The home is in a residential area close to Crewe town centre, local shops and other facilities. On the ground floor one unit provides accommodation for people living with dementia. The first floor contains two units, one for people with severe and enduring mental health needs and the other provides nursing and personal care. At the time of our inspection there were 74 people living at the home.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our 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.
We identified three breaches of the relevant legislation, in respect of safe care and treatment, safeguarding and good governance. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Overall the people and relatives we spoke with were positive about the care and support they received at Bentley Manor.
Staff knew the importance of keeping people safe, including being safe from abuse and harassment. However we found that whilst the majority of safeguarding concerns had been reported to the local authority we identified some incidents where local procedures had not been robustly followed. This meant that we couldn't be sure that people were fully protected.
We found that potential risks had not always been fully recorded in people’s care records and appropriate risk assessments were not always evident. The registered manager assured us that people’s care plans would be reviewed to ensure that appropriate risk assessments were in place. We saw that accidents and incidents, along with any pressure ulcers and weight loss or gain were regularly monitored.
Medicines were managed safely. We saw that a new electronic medication management system had been implemented. Staff told us that this was easier and safer to use.
We found that there were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people within the service. People told us that there were unfamiliar staff at night and weekends. There had been some issues around staff sickness and agency staff were utilised. The management team had focused on the recruitment of new staff and we saw that a significant number of staff had been employed and were undertaking induction training.
We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met. It was evident that the registered manager had a clear understanding of the MCA and its application. Records indicated that the majority of staff had attended MCA and DoLS training sessions and staff spoken with demonstrated an understanding the MCA.
We saw that staff received an induction and regular training was provided. Staff told us that they received the training and support they needed to carry out their roles effectively. Staff were also supported through supervisions and staff meetings.
We found that people’s nutritional needs were being met. People’s views on the quality of the food were positive. People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink and maintain a balanced diet and staff were knowledgeable about people’s nutritional needs.
People and their relatives told us that staff were kind and caring in their approach. People were treated with dignity and respect. Dignity champions had been appointed to promote dignity within the home.
People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. Care plans were detailed and contained sufficient information to enable staff to meet people's needs. People spoken with told us that they were given choices about the way their care was provided.
People looked well cared for and well presented. However, we found that nail care could be improved.
There were varied activities going on and people could choose whether they wanted to take part. The home had two activities coordinators and there was a programme of events available. There was a complaints procedure available and people told us that they knew how to complain should they need to.
Staff told us that they had seen some improvements in the organisation of the service and were positive about the registered manager. Staff told us that they received supervision and felt supported.
We found that the home had some systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received, but systems to obtain feedback from people and residents were being developed. However, quality assurance systems had not been robust enough to identify the issues raised within this inspection.