Archived: Blossoms Care Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care. People’s care was not planned in an individual or person-centred way. People’s care plans contained generic information and did not reflect important aspects of their life, such as past histories, goals or aspirations. People were not always treated in an equitable way, and they experienced poor outcomes. People were not well supported in planning for the future.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People did not receive care and support in a safe way that met their individual needs.

People were not supported to pursue any particular interests, and staff did not have the relevant information to understand people better so engagement was more meaningful. The manager said they were due to transfer to an electronic system which would be easier to manage people’s care plan information which was currently all in paper based records. The staff we spoke to confirmed they only had access to the paper-based care plans and risk assessment documentation which we found to lack important and detailed information. Although we observed some positive interaction in between staff and people we also observed some people did not have much interaction as all, particularly the people who had communication barriers.

The manager had tried to make some improvements to person centred care and had introduced ‘resident of the day’ where a person’s care plan would be looked at and their family called to discuss how their care and support was going. It was difficult to understand what positive impact this had made so far as it was not well embedded. The manager was trying to improve the engagement of people in activities. They said, “When I got here there wasn’t (any activities). I had meetings with (activities person) and got in contact with local the church. In summertime arrange to go out in community. Arranged for school to come here to sing, last time at Christmas. Also have external activity person the keep fit lady who comes Friday.”

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Staff and leaders did not ensure people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes were well considered or supported. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this. People with communication barriers were particularly at risk and were not supported in a way to maximise their experiences. People living with dementia were not always given the respect appropriate, for example we observed a staff member tell a person it was nearly 1pm. Another staff member said it was not, and it was not even 12pm. The first staff member said, “Yeah, I know I just tell (person) that, so they move”.

People were not supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. End of life care plans were not person centred, were generic and contained basic information. A senior staff member did not speak respectfully in front of people who were at the end of their life.