Children's Home run by Benjamin UK Ltd in Buckinghamshire

Inspection report for children’s home - monitoring visit: SC062317 1 SC062317

p.1

Benjamin UK Ltd

Monitoring visit Inspected under the social care common inspection framework

p.1

Information about this children’s home

This children’s home is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to four children. The statement of purpose describes a therapeutic approach for children e who have social and/or emotional difficulties. The home is one of a group of homes owned and operated by a private organisation.

p.1

Information about this children’s home

The home has not had a registered manager in post since September 2017.

p.1

This monitoring visit

An interim inspection on 26 March 2018 judged the home to have declined in effectiveness and identified serious shortfalls, including safeguarding concerns. A suspension notice was issued on 28 March 2018 and 10 requirements were made. A monitoring visit, conducted on 3 May 2018 found that the provider had complied with the suspension notice by not accommodating children. The provider was also making progress in meeting the requirements.

p.1

This monitoring visit

The purpose of this second monitoring visit was to monitor the provider’s continuing compliance with the suspension notice and to determine if a further suspension notice would be required, dependent upon the progress made in meeting the 10 requirements.

p.1

(Regulation 6 (1)(a)(b)(2)(a)(b)(i)(ii))

Previous shortfalls included the failure to ensure that the staff understand and deliver care in line with the home’s statement of purpose.

p.1

(Regulation 6 (1)(a)(b)(2)(a)(b)(i)(ii))

At the previous monitoring visit, the responsible individual outlined the plans in place to deliver training to the staff team in respect of the statement of purpose and the models of care that underpin the work of the organisation. During this monitoring visit, relevant records were examined, and some staff were Inspection report for children’s home - monitoring visit: SC062317 2 interviewed as a group and individually. The revised induction process for the staff team was reviewed. Individual staff members are now confidently able to describe the model of care, how this fits in the wider organisation and their own roles and responsibilities in its delivery.

p.1

(Regulation 6 (1)(a)(b)(2)(a)(b)(i)(ii))

The impact of this improved understanding cannot be fully tested until children are living in the home but sufficient progress in meeting this requirement has been demonstrated.

p.2

Induction (Regulation 33 (1)(a))

Previous shortfalls included the failure to provide the newly appointed manager with an induction, training or handover. The previous monitoring visit found that a revised induction programme was being developed.

p.2

Induction (Regulation 33 (1)(a))

At this monitoring visit, it was demonstrated that the staff team had received additional training and guidance which included a review of the previous induction information received. Staff described this as ‘a total re-visit of all prior learning about the organisation and the home’.

p.2

Induction (Regulation 33 (1)(a))

A revised induction process is now in place for new managers. Significantly, this revised practice includes a much greater emphasis on a new manager’s spending time with the wider aspects of the organisation, such as the therapy team and safeguarding personnel, prior to starting work in the home.

p.2

Induction (Regulation 33 (1)(a))

The impact of this change cannot yet be fully tested. However, the staff team members as a collective spoke ably and confidently about the aims and objectives of the home, including their role in achieving this. A new manager is being recruited and undergoing the required checks.

p.2

Induction (Regulation 33 (1)(a))

Sufficient progress has been made to demonstrate that this requirement has been met.

p.2

The protection of children standard (Regulation 12 (1)(2)(a)(i))

Previous shortfalls included the failure to put risk assessments in place, specifically in relation to a new admission.

p.2

The protection of children standard (Regulation 12 (1)(2)(a)(i))

At the previous monitoring visit, the responsible individual had concluded an investigation into the example of a previous poor admission. Consequently, she was planning to deliver further training and guidance on risk management more widely and placement matching more specifically.

p.2

The protection of children standard (Regulation 12 (1)(2)(a)(i))

At this monitoring visit, the responsible individual was able to demonstrate the reviews and updates that have occurred in respect of policy and procedural guidance; for example, a new placement matching policy has been written.

p.2

The protection of children standard (Regulation 12 (1)(2)(a)(i))

Clear and targeted guidance provides greater direction to ensure that relevant questions are explored in determining the potential impact of a child moving into the Inspection report for children’s home - monitoring visit: SC062317 3 home. The detailed procedure demonstrates that a thorough approach is ready for implementation.

p.2

The protection of children standard (Regulation 12 (1)(2)(a)(i))

This new process cannot yet be tested due to the home not yet accepting new referrals. However, sufficient progress has been made to demonstrate that this requirement has been met.

p.3

The care planning standard (Regulation 14 (1)(a)(b)(2)(a))

Previous shortfalls included failing to ensure that the staff team could meet the individual and complex needs of the new admission, along with ensuring that children’s care is effectively planned for and that they have a positive experience of moving into the home.

p.3

The care planning standard (Regulation 14 (1)(a)(b)(2)(a))

At the previous monitoring visit, the responsible individual had devised a new placement checklist to keep track of tasks, including chasing the local authority for the relevant documentation. A new referral log was ready to capture the manager’s decision-making process, cross-reference to other key plans and show a clear audit trail.

p.3

The care planning standard (Regulation 14 (1)(a)(b)(2)(a))

At this monitoring visit, no further evidence was available to demonstrate the impact of these changes because there have been no new admissions. From the documentation seen, it is evident that improved procedures are in place. The quality of implementation will be judged at future inspections. Sufficient progress has been made to demonstrate that this requirement has been met.

p.3

Appointment of a manager (Regulation 27 (1)(a)(b)(i)(ii)(iii)(2)(a)(b))

Previous shortfalls included insufficient management arrangements. This was specifically in relation to the lengthy absence of a registered manager and a high number of interim managers since the last inspection.

p.3

Appointment of a manager (Regulation 27 (1)(a)(b)(i)(ii)(iii)(2)(a)(b))

At the previous monitoring visit, a new manager had been identified from within the organisation. At this monitoring visit, the responsible individual informed the inspector that this situation had changed. Following a recent successful external recruitment drive, a new manager has been offered the position, subject to the receipt of satisfactory checks and references.

p.3

Appointment of a manager (Regulation 27 (1)(a)(b)(i)(ii)(iii)(2)(a)(b))

The home is not yet operational; therefore, there is no current negative impact upon the staff team or any children. Staff team members are deployed at other homes and it is planned that once fully appointed, the new manager, following an induction period, will join the team for a period of team building before any new referrals are considered. The plan demonstrates the provider’s understanding of the impact that having no registered manager in post for more than 26 weeks can have.

p.3

Appointment of a manager (Regulation 27 (1)(a)(b)(i)(ii)(iii)(2)(a)(b))

Sufficient progress has been made to demonstrate the provider’s commitment to have a registered manager in post prior to actively considering new referrals. Inspection report for children’s home - monitoring visit: SC062317 4

p.3

Staff qualifications (Regulation 32 (4)(a)(b)(5)(a)(b)(6)(a)(b))

Previous shortfalls included failing to provide a consistent and suitably trained workforce. At the previous monitoring visit, the responsible individual was focused on the development of a suitable training plan for the staff team.

p.4

Staff qualifications (Regulation 32 (4)(a)(b)(5)(a)(b)(6)(a)(b))

At this monitoring visit, sufficient evidence was seen to demonstrate that staff have, and are continuing to receive, ongoing training and guidance about the organisation, including its additional services and how these formulate the overall care model for children.

p.4

Staff qualifications (Regulation 32 (4)(a)(b)(5)(a)(b)(6)(a)(b))

There is a clear profile of all staff in relation to diploma level training; the majority of staff have this at the required level, or are working towards completion.

p.4

Staff qualifications (Regulation 32 (4)(a)(b)(5)(a)(b)(6)(a)(b))

Sufficient action has been taken to meet this requirement.

p.4

Case records (Regulation 36 (1)(a))

Previous shortfalls included the failure to ensure that the relevant documentation from the placing authority was obtained, leading to poor care planning.

p.4

Case records (Regulation 36 (1)(a))

At this monitoring visit, the responsible individual was able to demonstrate the work that has been completed in respect of policy and procedural guidance for managers and senior staff. This is in relation to the routine steps that they are required to take at numerous points while a child is in their care. Some of this guidance acts as prompts to ensure that information, especially in relation to liaising with external stakeholders, is sufficiently checked, reviewed and, when necessary, chased.

p.4

Case records (Regulation 36 (1)(a))

The impact of these improvements cannot be fully tested currently, but sufficient action has been taken in order to meet this requirement.

p.4

Records (Regulation 37 (1)(2)(a)(b))

Previous shortfalls included the failure to ensure that the register of children accommodated is accurately kept and that all the required information is recorded. Improved systems were being designed at the time of the previous monitoring visit.

p.4

Records (Regulation 37 (1)(2)(a)(b))

At this monitoring visit, the responsible individual was able to demonstrate that a new recording tool in respect of a ‘children’s register’ is ready for implementation. This requirement is met.

p.4

Review of quality of care (Regulation 45 (1)(2)(a)(b)(c)(3)(4)(a)(b)(5))

Previous shortfalls included the failure to provide an accurate review of the home that could have identified and addressed the concerns raised. At the previous monitoring visit, the responsible individual was reviewing previous systems and processes.

p.4

Review of quality of care (Regulation 45 (1)(2)(a)(b)(c)(3)(4)(a)(b)(5))

At this monitoring visit, the responsible individual was able to demonstrate the ongoing work that is being completed across the organisation’s other operational homes in respect of monitoring. This is now a regular feature in the organisation’s Inspection report for children’s home - monitoring visit: SC062317 5 managers’ meetings with a more targeted focus upon how managers evaluate the data and information before them, to arrive at an accurate picture of their home’s performance.

p.4

Review of quality of care (Regulation 45 (1)(2)(a)(b)(c)(3)(4)(a)(b)(5))

The impact of this improved process cannot yet be fully tested and will be examined at future inspections. However, the focus placed on the previous shortfalls, and subsequent learning demonstrated, is a positive indicator. Sufficient action has been taken to meet this requirement.

p.5

Supervision (Regulation 33 (4)(b))

Previous shortfalls included the failure to provide frequent supervision for the staff and managers. At the previous monitoring visit, the responsible individual demonstrated the new system that provides her with the evidence of such meetings occurring.

p.5

Supervision (Regulation 33 (4)(b))

At this monitoring visit, staff confirmed that they have received supervision from the managers of the homes they are currently deployed at. The sampling of the records available demonstrates that a clear agenda and format is in place for regular supervision. Safeguarding is routinely discussed, and staff reflect on the impact of their work and their own continuing professional development.

p.5

Supervision (Regulation 33 (4)(b))

The individual and cumulative impact of supervision will be tested at future inspections but sufficient action has been taken to meet this requirement.

p.5

Conclusion

Throughout this monitoring visit, staff members were particularly positive about the impact of the targeted improvement plans that have been developed. In particular, the team has been supported to review and reflect upon the combination of factors which resulted in the previous serious shortfalls and, consequently, the action taken by Ofsted.

p.5

Conclusion

The provider’s timely response includes a measured re-opening, combined with sufficient action taken to meet all the 10 requirements. Consequently, the suspension notice, due to expire on 20 June 2018, will not be re-issued.

p.5

Conclusion

Ofsted will continue to monitor the home’s progress during its phased return to becoming operational, through the usual inspection process. Inspection report for children’s home - monitoring visit: SC062317 6

p.5

Recent inspection history

Inspection date Inspection type Inspection judgement 26/03/2018 Interim Declined in effectiveness 17/05/2017 Full Good 09/01/2017 Interim Declined in effectiveness 18/05/2016 Full Requires improvement Inspection report for children’s home - monitoring visit: SC062317 7

p.6

Information about this inspection

The purpose of this visit was to monitor the action taken and the progress made by the children’s home since its last Ofsted monitoring inspection.

p.7

Information about this inspection

This inspection was carried out under the Care Standards Act 2000.

p.7

Children’s home details

Registered provider address: Church Farm House, Station Road, Aldbury, Tring HP23 5RS

p.7

Children’s home details

Responsible individual: Claudette Deysel

p.7

Inspector:

Sophie Wood, social care regulatory inspection manager Inspection report for children’s home - monitoring visit: SC062317 8 to achieve excellence in the care of children and young people, and in education and skills for learners of all ages. It regulates and inspects childcare and children’s social care, and inspects the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass), schools, colleges, initial teacher training, further education and skills, adult and community learning, and education and training in prisons and other secure establishments. It assesses council children’s services, and inspects services for looked after children, safeguarding and child protection.

p.7

Inspector:

If you would like a copy of this document in a different format, such as large print or Braille, please telephone 0300 123 1231, or email enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk . You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence , write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk .

p.8

Inspector:

Interested in our work? You can subscribe to our monthly newsletter for more information and updates: http://eepurl.com/iTrDn .

p.8

Inspector:

T: 0300 123 1231 Textphone: 0161 618 8524 E: enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk W: http://www.gov.uk/ofsted

p.8