Archived: Blenheim House

Updated 18 December 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection site visit activity started and ended on 20 November 2018 and was unannounced. One inspector carried out the inspection.

We reviewed the information we held about the home and looked at the notifications they had sent us. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.

During the inspection, we spoke with six people who lived at the home. We spoke with three staff, the registered manager and a provider representative present for the inspection feedback. We reviewed the risk assessments and plans of two for three people and their medicine records. We also looked at provider records for, staff meeting minutes and ‘residents’ meeting minutes and the daily records, the providers \improvement plan and quality monitoring.

Updated 18 December 2018

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 20 November 2018.

Blenheim House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for adults for a maximum of 15 people. There were 14 people living at the home on the day of the inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People continued to feel safe living at the home and that staff supported them to maintain their safety. Staff told us about how they minimised the risk to people’s safety and that they would report any suspected abuse or the risk of abuse to the management team. People got the help needed with staff offering guidance or support with their care that reduced their risk of harm.

There were staff available to meet people’s needs or answer any requests for support in a timely way. Care staff had time to spend time socially with people or offering and encouraging activities.

People continued to receive their medicines from staff who managed their medicines in the right way. People also felt that if they needed extra pain relief or other medicines as needed these were provided. Staff wore protective gloves and aprons to reduce the risks of spreading infection.

People were involved in planning their care, which included end of life planning where required. People’s care plans were accurate and had up to date information about their current care needs.

People told us staff knew their care and support needs. Staff told us they understood the needs of people and their knowledge was supported by the training they were given. Staff knowledge reflected the needs of people who lived at the home. People told us staff acted on their wishes and their agreement had been sought before staff carried out any care or support.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People who lack mental capacity to consent to arrangements for necessary care or treatment can only be deprived of their liberty when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People told us they enjoyed their meals, had a choice of the foods they enjoyed and were supported to eat and drink enough to keep them healthy. People had access to other healthcare professionals that provided treatment, advice and guidance to support their health needs.

People told us they enjoyed spending time with staff who respected their privacy and dignity was maintained with staff support. People’s day to day preferences were listened to by staff and people’s choices and decisions were respected. Staff told us it was important to promote a person’s independence and ensure people had as much involvement as possible in their care and support.

People were aware of who they would make a complaint to if needed. People told us they were happy to talk through things with staff or the registered manager if they were not happy with the care.

People enjoyed living in the home which met their needs. The provider and staff demonstrated their commitment to care for people. They linked with care provider forums and ensured people had access to the local community.

The provider had a programme of audits in place to monitor the quality and safety of people’s care and support. The provider continually strived to make things work better so that people benefitted from a home that met their needs.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.