CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Benenden
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about protective equipment, testing access for staff, cleaning, visiting arrangements, isolation plans and infection control. They found that not all residents were regularly tested and that the related risks had not been fully assessed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, April 2021
The Grange - Benenden was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection controls, but not all residents were being regularly tested.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 24 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sixteen people were living at the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, supported staff testing, kept the building clean, managed visitors carefully and had plans to isolate people with COVID-19. People were also supported to stay in touch with family and take part in activities.
The home was not given an overall quality rating. The infection control area was marked ‘Inspected but not rated’. Inspectors found that not all residents were being regularly tested because of difficulties obtaining consent, and the risks had not been fully assessed.
Family contact
The home supported people to keep in touch with relatives by telephone, the internet and carefully arranged visits.
“People were well supported by staff to have telephone and internet contact with their family and friends.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors were screened, tested, asked to use protective equipment and offered staggered visits in cleaned spaces.
“Visits were staggered and visiting spaces cleaned between use.” from the report
Infection control
The home had protective equipment available, enhanced cleaning and plans to isolate people with COVID-19.
“Plans were in place to isolate people with COVID-19 to minimise transmission.” from the report
Activities and stimulation
People had a range of activities, and parts of the grounds had been adapted to provide social activities on site.
“Staff ensured people's welfare had been maintained and they had sufficient stimulation.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the building clean and free from clutter, with enhanced cleaning practices in place.
“The building was clean and free from clutter and there were enhanced cleaning practices.” from the report
Resident testing
needs fixingNot all people living at the home were being tested regularly because of problems obtaining consent. The risks and actions needed to reduce them had not been fully assessed.
“The risks associated with this had not been fully assessed with mitigating actions implemented.” from the report
- 01How do you now arrange COVID-19 or other infection testing when a resident cannot or will not give consent?
- 02What risk assessment and alternative measures are used when a resident is not tested?
- 03What options were discussed with the GP practice to reduce the risks linked to testing?
- 04How are visits currently screened, tested and managed to prevent infection spreading?
- 05What activities are available for residents who cannot take part in community activities?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not provide a full quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 April 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.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good, with Outstanding responsiveness; inspectors found kind, person-centred care and improvements in decision-making safeguards.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 and 27 September 2018. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, managers, relatives and a health professional. They reviewed care records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. It was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Responsive, meaning inspectors found exceptionally personalised support, strong involvement in decisions, meaningful activities and good links with families and the local community.
Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable risks. There were enough staff to meet people's needs, although the home had three vacancies and used some agency staff. Medicines were administered safely, and staff training and checks were in place.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. It was now making the required Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications and following the Mental Capacity Act. No current breaches of regulations were reported.
Personalised support
People were central to decisions about their care, support plans and activities. Staff adapted information and communication to individual needs.
“People were always at the centre of making decisions about their care and support.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw staff listening to people, respecting their choices and building warm, positive relationships.
“Staff developed and maintained strong, caring and positive relationships with the people they supported.” from the report
Independence
People were supported to work towards personal goals, cook, do laundry, take part in household tasks and access the community.
“There was a strong emphasis on supporting people to maintain and increase their independence.” from the report
Improved safeguards
The home had addressed the previous concern about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and was using the Mental Capacity Act more appropriately.
“At this inspection on 25 and 27 September 2018 we found the service had made improvements and staff were following the principles of the MCA.” from the report
Staff vacancies and agency use
minorThe home had three staff vacancies and was using some agency workers. The report says recruitment and retention work was under way, so families may want to check how this affects consistency for residents.
“The registered manager told us they needed to use some agency staff as the service had three vacancies” from the report
End-of-life planning still developing
minorThe provider was beginning to discuss people's wishes about dying, bereavement and funerals. This work was positive but was still being developed at the time of inspection.
“The registered provider was taking a novel approach to how they could best support people at the end of their lives to have a dignified death.” from the report
- 01How many of the three staff vacancies have now been filled, and how often are agency staff currently used?
- 02How are residents involved in choosing and interviewing new staff?
- 03How are each person's communication needs recorded and shared with new or agency staff?
- 04How are people's wishes about dying, bereavement, music, flowers and funerals now discussed and recorded?
- 05How do you check that Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications and best-interest decisions remain up to date?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, the overall quality of the home and compliance with legal requirements. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 November 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 Benenden
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 July 2016.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.