You are here

Blossoms Care Services Ltd DCA Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 February 2016

The inspection was carried out on 19 and 26 January 2016. We gave short notice of the inspection because the registered manager was often out of the office supporting staff and some of the people using the service were often out at their daily activities. We needed to be sure that they would be available to speak with us.

Blossoms Care Services provides a domiciliary care service which provides personal care and support to people who are living in their own home. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support to 57 people, in the Isle of Sheppey, Sittingbourne, Faversham and the Swale area. The service is able to provide a range of visits to people, from one to two hours per week, up to several visits per day. Support is primarily given to older people, people with learning disabilities, people with sensory impairment, and people with mental health difficulties. Blossoms Care Services provides supported living services to people in their own home. People had a variety of complex needs including mental and physical health needs and behaviours that may challenge. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support to 22 people, in a range of supported living houses. The support provided aims to enable people to live as independently as possible. Blossoms Care Services also provides a day service currently for 12 people.

The service provided care and support to people enabling them to live fulfilled and meaningful lives. Staff were skilled at ensuring people were safe whilst encouraging them to reach their potential and live independent lives. People and their relatives were overwhelmingly positive about the service they received. Comments included, “Staff are caring individuals, they care for the person they are looking after and it is genuine”, and “I would recommend this service, the staff are very caring”.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service had suitable processes in place to safeguard people from different forms of abuse. Staff had been trained in safeguarding people and in the agency’s whistleblowing policy. Staff were confident that they could raise any matters of concern with the provider, the registered manager, the managers of services or the local authority safeguarding team. Staff were trained in how to respond in an emergency (such as a fire, or if the person collapsed) to protect people from harm.

Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood the processes to follow and knew who to contact, if they felt a person’s normal freedoms and rights were being significantly restricted.

The registered manager and managers of the services involved people in planning their care by assessing their needs on their first visit to the person, and then by asking people if they were happy with the care they received. There was a strong emphasis on person centred care. People were supported to plan their support and they received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes. The service was flexible and responded positively to changes in people’s needs. People were able to express their opinions and views and they were encouraged and supported to have their voices heard within their local and wider community.

The registered manager and managers of the services carried out risk assessments when they visited people for the first time. Other assessments identified people’s specific health and care needs, their mental health needs, medicines management, and any equipment needed. Care was planned and agreed between the service and the individual person concerned. Some people were supported by their family members to discuss their care needs, if this was their choice to do so.

People were supported with meal planning, preparation and eating and drinking. Staff supported people, by contacting the office to alert the registered manager or managers of the services to any identified health needs so that their doctor or nurse could be informed.

Staff enabled people to use assistive technology to support people to be as independent as possible. They had initiated and led projects to help people move from residential services, where they had previously required constant staff supervision, to allow them more privacy and independence in their own homes or supported living services. Staff were available and easily accessible nearby. Staff and managers had an excellent understanding of managing risks and had supported people that had previously challenged services to reach their full potential.

People had positive relationships with the support staff who knew them well and used their shared interests to help people live interesting lives. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs and people were busy and engaged with their communities. They were supported to make and maintain friendships and relationships that were important to them.

The service had robust recruitment practices in place. Applicants for post were assessed as suitable for their job roles. All staff received induction training which included essential subjects such as maintaining confidentiality, moving and handling, safeguarding people and infection control. They worked alongside experienced staff and had their competency assessed before they were allowed to work on their own. Refresher training was provided at regular intervals. Staff had been trained to administer medicines safely.

Staff followed an up to date medicines policy issued by the provider and they were checked against this by the training manager. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and were supported through regular supervision and an annual appraisal so they were supported to carry out their roles.

People said that they knew they could contact the registered manager or managers of services at any time, and they felt confident about raising any concerns or other issues. The registered manager and managers of the services carried out spot checks to assess care staff’s work and procedures, with people’s prior agreement. This enabled people to get to know the mangers of the services.

The service had processes in place to monitor the delivery of the service. As well as talking to the registered manager and managers of the services at spot checks, people could phone the office at any time, or speak to the senior person on duty for out of hours calls. People’s views were obtained through meetings with the person and meetings with families of people who used the service. The provider checked how well people felt the service was meeting their needs.

Incidents and accidents were recorded and checked by the provider or registered manager to see what steps could be taken to prevent these happening again. Risks were assessed and the steps taken to minimise them were understood by staff. Managers of services ensured that they had planned for foreseeable emergencies, so that should they happen, people’s care needs would continue to be met.

People felt that the service was well led. The provider and registered manager demonstrated strong values and a desire to learn about and implement best practice throughout the range of services provided. Staff were motivated and proud of the service. The service had developed and sustained effective links with organisations that helped them develop best practice in the service. The registered manager used effective systems to continually monitor the quality of the service and ongoing plans for improving the services people received.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 February 2016

The service was safe.

People were supported to take positive risks, enabling them to lead independent lives.

Staffing levels were flexible and determined by people’s needs. Robust recruitment procedures ensured people were only supported by staff that had been deemed suitable and safe to work with them.

People were supported to manage their medicines safety.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 February 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received on-going training and supervision, and studied for formal qualifications. Staff were supported through individual one to one meetings and appraisals.

People were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s health needs, and contacted other health and social care professionals if they had concerns about people’s health.

People were supported to stay healthy, active and well.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 February 2016

The service was caring.

The registered manager and managers of services staff were committed to a strong person centred culture.

People had positive relationships with staff that were based on respect and shared interests.

People and their relatives felt staff often went the extra mile to provide compassionate and enabling care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 February 2016

The service was responsive.

The service was flexible and responded quickly to people’s changing needs or wishes.

People received care that was based on their needs and preferences. They were involved in all aspects of their care and were supported to lead their lives in the way they wished to.

People’s views and opinions were sought and listened to. Feedback from people receiving support was used to drive improvements.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 February 2016

The service was well-led.

There was an open and positive culture which focused on people. The registered manager and managers sought people and staff’s feedback.

The provider and registered manager maintained quality assurance and monitoring procedures in order to provide an on-going assessment of how the service was functioning; and to act on the results to bring about improved services.