Bings Hall

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People and their relatives told us they felt the service was safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding and felt able to report any concerns. Assessments of any risks to people’s safety and welfare had not been robustly completed and we found that plans had not always been put into place to help mitigate these risks or that staff were aware. This included fire risks and not all staff were confident of the action they should take should an evacuation be needed. The environment had not been maintained to an appropriate standard. Repairs were required to some areas of the building and improvements needed with regards to cleanliness. Staff recruitment was safe and pre-employment checks completed. The registered manager monitored staff deployment and ensured safe staffing levels were maintained. During our assessment of this key question, we found concerns around the management of risks which resulted in a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We also found concerns regarding the environment which resulted in a breach of Regulation 15 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below.

This service scored 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us they felt safe. One person told us, “They (staff) make you feel safe.” People and those who matter to them had safeguarding information in a form they could use and knew how to raise a concern if they had one.

Staff had an understanding of how to protect people from abuse and what action they should take if they felt someone was at risk. One staff member said, “I have had online training; I have not had to raise any safeguarding since being here. I would look out for signs of abuse such as marks, changes in behaviours. Care staff would come to me, and we would raise it higher. We could also report it straight to safeguarding.”

We observed that people were calm and comfortable in the presence of staff.

The provider had systems and processes in place. This included an up-to-date policy and a safeguarding log which the registered manager used to record any concerns raised at the service, the action taken and any outcome, once determined.

Despite a lack of clear risk assessments and robust processes, people told us they felt safe with the support being provided.

Staff felt they had the right skills to support people with their risks and maintaining their safety. However, when speaking with staff about fire risks, most staff did not feel confident in the event of a fire that they could evacuate people safely. The provider and registered manager told us they would take action to make improvements to increase staff confidence.

We observed staff supporting people safely during our visit to the service.

The management team completed assessments associated to people's risks, however these were not always detailed, and in some cases, staff were not aware of the assessments in place for known risks. For example, where people needed to have their food modified, this was not recorded nor highlighted as a risk. In addition, we found an example where a person was a risk of pressure damage to their skin and required repositioning. However, this was not highlighted in the risk assessment and associated documentation did not confirm that repositioning was being completed. Fire risks were not managed effectively. Information within people’s emergency plans was not consistent and people did not always have correct risk assessments in place in the event of an evacuation. Staff had completed relevant fire training but did not carry out practice evacuations.

People told us they liked living at Bings Hall as it had a homely feel, however some people fed back concerns that the heating was not working and, as a result, had to use portable heaters. One person said, “I have had trouble with my radiator, radiator does not work properly. My daughter has had to bring a heater in.” Another person said, “The radiator does not work. It’s never worked since I have been here but I have the electric heater.”

Staff said they had all the equipment they needed, and it was all in good working condition. They felt they worked in a safe environment but had some limitations. One staff member said, “I would say the environment is safe. However, the width of the doors are breaking, we have a shower room upstairs, we have a bath downstairs, we do not use it. We have to wait for that one shower, so people have to wait for showers.” The provider and registered manager told us they had actioned some parts of the maintenance identified as needed at the time of the assessment. For example, new storage heaters were being installed. They said they had external companies that came in to do the deep clean alongside their domestic member of staff, however, would review this due to our findings.

We found parts of the home in poor condition. Internal fire doors were in need of repair and there were areas where doors, carpets and flooring were stained. In addition, in some people’s bedrooms, hallways and communal toilets there was a strong malodour. We found black mould around the window of a person’s bedroom and areas where dust and debris were evident.

The registered manager, and provider, told us they had systems in place to ensure the service was clean and well maintained. However, we found that these were ineffective.

People felt there were enough staff to support them who were kind and caring. One person said, “I like it here. It’s clean and homely. You can chat, and the staff are lively, they come and chat. They are patient.”

Staff felt they had the right skills to do the role. One staff member said, “I have had standard training, manual handling and we have refresher, NVQ 3 on the job training. I think I have all the training.” Staff shared mixed views about the staff morale and teamwork. In some cases, staff felt that workload was not always equitable.

We observed staff responding to people’s needs during our visit to the service. People were being supported by staff who spoke in a kind and respectful manner.

Staff recruitment was safe and all essential pre-employment checks were completed. We saw that staffing levels were consistent and matched with the dependency tool used by the registered manager and the planned rota.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.