CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bennfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, accessing testing, admitting people safely and managing infection outbreaks. They were only somewhat assured about the layout and hygiene of the premises because some areas were tired and worn.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This question was not assessed in the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Bennfield House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control overall, but some areas were tired and worn.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 15 February 2022. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control during the home's response to COVID-19, and asked about staffing pressures.
The home required visitors to take a lateral flow test and provided PPE. Staff and residents took part in testing, and the home acted quickly when someone tested positive. Inspectors were assured about visiting, PPE, testing, admissions and managing outbreaks.
The home was visibly clean and had no bad smells. However, some areas were tired and worn and were not easy to keep clean. A refurbishment plan was being put in place.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Infection precautions
Visitors were tested and given PPE. Staff and residents took part in testing, with quick action when someone tested positive.
“Staff and people using the service took part in the home's testing programme. Action was swiftly taken when anyone tested positive with COVID-19.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home supported visits in line with current guidance. Some relatives were recognised as essential care givers.
“The provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report
Cleanliness
The home was visibly clean, had no bad smells and regularly cleaned high-touch areas such as door handles and handrails.
“The home was visibly clean and there were no malodours. Staff had access to cleaning products.” from the report
COVID-19 controls
Inspectors were assured about several parts of the home's infection control, including PPE, testing, admissions and outbreak management.
“We were assured that the provider was using personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
Tired areas of the building
needs fixingSome areas were worn and not easy to keep clean. The provider had a refurbishment plan, but the report does not say that all work had been completed.
“Some areas of the home were tired and worn and were not easy to keep clean.” from the report
Staffing pressures
minorThe provider reported COVID-19-related staffing pressures. The report says measures were in place to reduce the risks, but it does not give detail about the staffing levels.
“The provider told us they had measures in place to mitigate the risks associated with COVID-19 related staff pressures” from the report
- 01Which tired or worn areas were included in the refurbishment plan, and what work has now been completed?
- 02How will you make sure the remaining worn areas can be kept clean?
- 03What COVID-19-related staffing pressures were present at the time, and how were they affecting care?
- 04What testing and PPE arrangements are currently required for visitors and staff?
- 05How are visits being supported, including visits from essential care givers?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide a full service rating or assess the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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, November 2020
Bennfield House: infection control arrangements were found reassuring, but this targeted inspection was not rated.
Inspectors visited on 21 October 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. It looked at infection prevention and control because the home was being used for people discharged from hospital with a positive COVID-19 test.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, personal protective equipment, cleaning, testing and its infection control policy appropriately. They saw staff wearing suitable protective equipment.
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends through window visits, phone calls and video calls. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide a full overall rating or ratings for all five areas.
Separate COVID-19 area
The home had a separate area for people discharged from hospital with a positive COVID-19 test.
“The service had set aside a specific and separate area of the home to care for people who had been discharged from hospital with a positive test result for COVID- 19.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors saw staff using appropriate personal protective equipment during the visit.
“We observed staff wearing appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at the time of inspection.” from the report
Family contact
Staff helped people stay in touch with relatives and friends in different ways during the pandemic.
“people were supported to contact family and friends by 'window visits', phone or video calls.” from the report
Infection control systems
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering visitors, social distancing, testing, hygiene and its infection control policy.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently separate people who may have an infection from other residents?
- 02How do you make sure staff use personal protective equipment correctly?
- 03How are residents and staff tested when someone has symptoms or a positive COVID-19 result?
- 04How can my relative keep in touch with family and friends if normal visits are restricted?
- 05How do you safely admit new residents, including people discharged from hospital?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; it was not a full inspection and the other areas were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 November 2020 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 Bennfield House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 November 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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Doncaster
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. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“I can honestly say without Petros I don't believe he would have lived an extra 2 years”
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.