CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Benjamin House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found safeguarding procedures, risk assessments, safe recruitment, enough staff and systems for medicines, although recent medicines-record gaps had needed correction.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. They were supported with healthcare, exercise, food, consent and staff training.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed respectful and tactful interactions. People were supported with privacy, dignity, relationships, hobbies and developing independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected individual needs, preferences, triggers and goals. People were supported with community activities, complaints, recovery and skill development.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management oversight had improved since the previous inspection. The provider was visiting at least monthly and the home had quality checks, although follow-up information from house meetings was limited.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with earlier management weaknesses improved.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive visit on 4 and 5 July 2018. They spoke with five people using the service and several staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, training records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable safeguarding and recruitment checks, support with health appointments, personalised care plans and opportunities to build independence.
There were some smaller issues. Recent gaps in medicines records were found and corrected during the inspection. There was also not enough information showing that suggestions from house meetings had been followed up. The home had improved its management oversight since the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Risk assessments covered areas such as mental health, mobility, self-neglect and community activities.
“All the people we spoke with indicated they felt safe at the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed respectful interactions. People were supported as individuals, with their privacy, dignity, relationships and personal choices respected.
“We observed some tactful and respectful interactions between people using the service and staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, interests and goals. Support focused on recovery, confidence and greater independence.
“There were short term goals, to motivate people in developing skills, achieving greater levels of independence and confidence building.” from the report
Good access to health support
People were supported to attend healthcare appointments and their physical and mental health needs were monitored.
“People had access to health care professionals when needed, they told us staff supported them with appointments.” from the report
Improved oversight
The provider had introduced regular unannounced visits, records of findings and a business plan after earlier concerns about oversight.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingInspectors found some recent unexplained gaps in medicines administration records. This meant it was not always clear whether medicines had been given, although the manager took action during the inspection.
“We noted some recent unexplained gaps on MAR charts which meant it was not always clear the medicines had been administered.” from the report
Following up residents' suggestions
minorPeople could raise matters in house meetings, but records did not clearly show how suggestions and agreed actions had been followed up.
“There was a lack of information to show how suggestions and agreed outcomes had been followed up” from the report
- 01How are medicines administration records checked now to prevent unexplained gaps?
- 02How are actions from house meetings recorded and reported back to residents?
- 03How will you adapt care plans and written information for someone who needs information in an easier format?
- 04What support is available for healthcare appointments, exercise and building daily living skills?
- 05What staffing arrangements are in place when residents' needs, appointments or activities change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the report says nursing care was not provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 September 2018 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 Benjamin House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 September 2011.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.