CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Benfield Hall Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were recorded, staff understood how to keep people safe, and medicines were administered and documented safely. Checks on agency staff had not been completed before the inspection but were put in place during it.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff supported access to healthcare, food and drink. The provider had also arranged for training to be delivered face to face because staff felt this was more useful than workbook-based training.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices and do tasks for themselves where possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and kept up to date. People had choice over their routines and activities, could access the community, and had their complaints investigated.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager promoted a person-centred culture and the provider used audits and an external consultant to identify improvements. However, a staff survey found that some staff did not always feel able to express their views.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some checks and staff feedback needing attention.
The CQC made an unannounced inspection visit on 21 and 23 October 2019. Inspectors reviewed information, spoke with four people and ten staff, and looked at the care home, records and how care was provided.
The home cared for 18 people with mental health issues and could support up to 20. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who knew their needs. Medicines, care plans, food, healthcare support and complaints were managed well.
Some improvements were made during the inspection. These included checking agency staff properly and arranging more face-to-face training. The report also noted that extra night-time fire drills had been recommended and that some staff did not always feel able to express their views.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the service met the required standard in each area at that inspection. The previous rating was also Good.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated well and staff understood their needs. Inspectors saw a calm atmosphere and people approached staff confidently.
“Staff treated people well. People approached staff with confidence. There was a calm atmosphere in the home.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and signs of worsening mental health. Staff reviewed them monthly and respected people's established routines.
“Staff had documented people's needs in a range of care plans where their needs, and preferences were explained.” from the report
Safe medicines and safeguarding
Staff had safeguarding training and raised concerns when needed. Inspectors found suitable arrangements for ordering, storing, giving and disposing of medicines.
“The manager had listened to staff concerns and made appropriate safeguarding alerts to the local authority.” from the report
Support with healthcare
Staff helped people attend medical appointments and worked with other professionals. Relevant advice was included in care plans.
“Staff supported people to attend medical appointments.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, follow their own routines and take part in activities. Staff also encouraged people to do things for themselves.
“Staff supported people's independence. They encouraged people to make their own breakfast, get their own drinks as well as arranging their own taxis and doing their laundry.” from the report
Agency staff checks
needs fixingThe provider had not checked agency staff before they worked at the home. The manager checked the agency nurse on duty during the inspection and introduced a process for future checks.
“The provider had not carried out checks on agency staff.” from the report
Night-time fire drills
needs fixingDaytime fire drills had taken place, but an external audit had recommended additional drills at night. Ask whether these have now been completed.
“Additional night time fire drills had been recommended during a recent external audit of the service.” from the report
Staff confidence to speak up
needs fixingA staff survey found that some staff did not always feel able to express their views. Managers discussed this with staff and encouraged them to be more open.
“Staff reported in the survey they did not always feel able to express their views.” from the report
Bathroom adaptation
minorThe manager knew about an ongoing issue involving adapting a bathroom to resolve one person's bathing difficulties. The report does not say whether this had been completed.
“The manager was aware of an ongoing specific issue to adapt a bathroom and resolve a person's bathing issues.” from the report
- 01What checks are now completed before agency staff start work, including when they arrive outside office hours?
- 02Have additional night-time fire drills been completed, and what did they show?
- 03What face-to-face training has been provided since the inspection, and how is staff competence checked?
- 04How can staff raise concerns safely, and what action has been taken about the survey finding that some staff did not feel able to speak up?
- 05Has the bathroom adaptation been completed, and how are the person's bathing needs being met in the meantime?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Benfield Hall Nursing Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 October 2018.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.