CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Benets Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people's risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, and there were enough staff to meet people's care needs. The home was clean and equipment and fire safety checks were maintained.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Effective. It says staff training was well organised and that people's care needs and risks were assessed and reviewed.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Caring. Inspectors observed kind and personalised interactions, and people and relatives spoke positively about staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and choices. Inspectors found improvements in mealtime support, communication, activities and the way concerns were handled.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found strong management oversight, comprehensive audits and good communication with people, relatives and staff. The new manager and deputy manager were seen regularly working alongside staff and people.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements in mealtime choices.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 23 June and 5 July 2023. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment files, training and safety checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, safe medicine management, a clean environment and care that was personalised.
The inspection followed a concern about staffing levels and whether people had time to have a bath or shower. The concern was not substantiated. The home had also improved mealtime choices after the previous inspection recommendation.
Effective and Caring were not given separate ratings in this report. The previous overall rating was Good, while Responsive had previously been Requires Improvement and had improved to Good.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. People said call bells were answered promptly, and staff said teamwork helped them manage busy shifts.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's care needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people well and adapted their support to individual needs, including at mealtimes. People were offered choices and their dignity and preferences were respected.
“The lunchtime experience was calm and relaxed. Thought had been given by the new manager and staff as to how people were supported” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were given as prescribed. Staff who administered medicines were trained and had their competence checked.
“Current records showed people received their medicines in the way prescribed for them.” from the report
Positive leadership
The management team had good oversight of care and used audits, staff feedback and reviews to improve the service. Families and staff valued the new manager's involvement.
“People's quality of life was enhanced by a well-led staff team and good provider oversight who showed a commitment to provide good quality care.” from the report
Some people wanted more activities
minorActivities were available, including trips and visiting performers, but a few people said they would like more. The manager planned to develop activities further.
“External performers also visited the home, for example singers and musicians, and trips took place, although a few people said they would like more.” from the report
Different levels of end of life experience
minorSome staff had more experience than others in end of life care. More experienced staff took the lead in monitoring people's wellbeing and working with relatives.
“Some staff had more experience than others in this area of care, and therefore took the lead in monitoring people's well-being and liaising with relatives.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff when shifts are busy or someone is off sick?
- 02What activities and trips are currently available, and how do you respond when someone wants more to do?
- 03How are staff supported to build their experience in end of life care?
- 04How are bath and shower requests recorded and checked to make sure people receive them when they want?
- 05What is the current position on the new manager's registration with CQC?
This was a focused inspection following a staffing and bathing concern; Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated, while Effective and Caring were not separately rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 November 2023 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 2021
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always responsive to people's care choices, meals and activities.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service. Inspectors visited unannounced on 3, 9 and 22 September 2021. They spoke with people, staff, family members and health professionals, observed a mealtime and checked care, medicines, staffing and other records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective and caring care, and for being well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staff understood people's risks, medicines were generally given safely, and managers had systems to check quality and act on problems.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being responsive. Care plans were not always complete or regularly reviewed, including information about end of life care. People were not always offered meaningful choices at mealtimes, and some people said they wanted more activities. The manager was already making changes, including improving care plans, mealtimes and activity provision.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm relationships between people and staff. People and families said staff cared about them and treated them well.
“We observed kind, caring and respectful relationships between people and staff.” from the report
Risk management
People's individual risks were assessed and reviewed. Staff had guidance about how to support people safely.
“People's individual risks, such as the risk of pressure damage, were assessed and regularly reviewed.” from the report
Improving leadership
A new manager and management changes were having a positive effect. Audits and improvement plans were being used to track problems.
“The provider had identified that improvements to the oversight and management of the home were needed.” from the report
Listening to concerns
People, families and staff felt able to raise concerns. Managers investigated issues and worked with the local authority and health professionals.
“People, family members and staff all told us they felt comfortable raising concerns, and that they felt they would be listened to.” from the report
Care plans incomplete
needs fixingCare plans were not always regularly reviewed or fully completed. Six plans had no information about end of life care.
“Six care plans we looked at contained no information about how to care for people at the end of their life.” from the report
Limited meal choices
needs fixingPeople were asked about meals up to three days in advance. During the inspection, some people did not know what they were having and one person was not offered an alternative when they refused a meal.
“People were not given meaningful choices at mealtimes.” from the report
Too few activities
minorSome people said they wanted more activities and one person said they were bored. The manager was recruiting an activities coordinator.
“People had given feedback that they would like more opportunity to engage in activities and interests, one person said "I get bored.” from the report
Incomplete cream records
needs fixingPeople received medicines safely overall, but records showing when topical creams were given were not always complete. Refresher training was being provided.
“People received their medicines safely, however, records relating to administration of topical creams were not always fully completed.” from the report
- 01How are care plans now reviewed, and how are end of life wishes recorded?
- 02How can residents choose or change their meal on the day?
- 03What activities are now available, and has an activities coordinator been appointed?
- 04How do you check that topical cream records are completed correctly?
- 05What changes were made during the voluntary suspension of admissions, and how are you checking that they have worked?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection control, care records, medicines, staffing and quality systems; it was the first inspection of the newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 November 2021 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 St Benets Court
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 September 2019.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.