CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Benjamin Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about testing, visiting, social distancing, admissions and outbreak planning. They found minor problems with a bathroom floor and PPE disposal, which the provider fixed after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 controls, with minor problems in cleaning and PPE disposal that were fixed after the visit.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. Sixteen people were living in the home, which can support up to 17 people.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, testing, social distancing, admissions and possible outbreaks. Staff were vaccinated, regularly tested and used personal protective equipment. Staff also showed knowledge of infection control, and their skills had been checked.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about the building's layout, cleaning and PPE disposal. One bathroom floor needed replacing and safe disposal arrangements for PPE were not in place. The provider fixed both issues shortly after the inspection.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five areas inspectors usually consider.
COVID-19 planning
The home had assessed infection risks and had a continuity plan for a possible outbreak.
“Risks in relation to COVID-19 were assessed for staff and people.” from the report
Staff infection control
Staff were vaccinated, tested regularly and understood infection prevention practices. Competency checks had also been completed.
“Staff were confident and knowledgeable regarding infection prevention and control practices and staff competency checks had routinely been completed.” from the report
Visiting and testing
Inspectors were assured that the home supported visits and carried out testing for people and staff.
“We were assured that the provider was accessing testing for people using the service and staff.” from the report
Bathroom flooring
minorA bathroom floor needed replacing so it could be cleaned effectively. The provider completed this shortly after the inspection.
“the flooring in one bathroom needed replacing to ensure effective cleaning.” from the report
PPE disposal
needs fixingThe home did not initially have safe arrangements for disposing of used PPE. The provider corrected this after the inspection.
“The provider did not have safe disposal methods in place.” from the report
- 01Have the bathroom flooring repairs remained complete and easy to clean?
- 02What safe PPE disposal arrangements are now in place?
- 03How does the home currently manage visits and infection risks?
- 04What is the current position on staff testing, vaccination and infection-control competency checks?
- 05Can you show us the home's current outbreak and staffing-continuity plan?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 2022 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.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Rated Good overall, but well-led Requires Improvement because safeguarding notifications were missed and there were minor medicines recording problems.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 13 August 2018. Inspectors spoke with six people, four care staff, the manager and a director. They also checked care plans, staff files, training, medicines and quality records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. People said they felt safe and well supported. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable care plans, kind support, choices about daily life, activities and help with healthcare.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. The provider had not told CQC about eight potential safeguarding allegations, although a new checklist was introduced after the inspection. Inspectors also found minor problems with medicines storage and records, which the manager acted on during the visit.
The overall rating stayed Good. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns, but the lower well-led rating means the home needed to improve how it checked and reported important events.
Enough staff
Staffing levels were found to be sufficient, and people received help promptly when they asked for it.
“We observed that when people requested support this was provided in a timely way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and routines. People had keyworkers and were involved in planning their care.
“Each person had a keyworker who they met regularly with to discuss their care and make sure their preferences were reflected in their care plans.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home supported activities suited to people's interests and helped people maintain contact with friends and relatives.
“People were supported to maintain relationships to reduce social isolation.” from the report
Safeguarding notifications
seriousThe provider had not notified CQC about eight potential allegations of abuse. A new checklist was introduced after the inspection to help prevent this happening again.
“We identified that the provider had failed to send notifications in relation to eight potential allegations of abuse.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingInspectors found minor problems with medicines storage and recording. One medicine recorded as given was still in its blister pack, and some medicines had not been returned to the pharmacy.
“One person's medicines for administration at 8am on the day of inspection had been signed on the medicine record as given.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every potential safeguarding incident is reported to CQC when required?
- 02What happened after the eight missed safeguarding notifications, and have any further checks been carried out?
- 03What changes were made after the medicines recording error found during the inspection?
- 04How do you check that medicines are returned to the pharmacy and that records match the medicines given?
- 05How are residents and relatives able to raise concerns and see whether action has been taken?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the previous focused inspection in April 2017 had looked only at Safe and Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 October 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 Lodge
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Inspected but not ratedSafe: GoodResponsive: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 July 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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.