Bloomfield Court

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for the service under this provider. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People appeared comfortable with staff, and we saw them interact positively with them. For example, we observed a person appearing comfortable when talking to staff while they were engaging in arts and crafts activities. This was supported by feedback from people, which included, “Staff are very kind; they are excellent”; “I am very happy here”, and "Staff are very nice.”

Staff demonstrated they were aware of how to treat people with kindness and compassion, and relatives also told us staff treated people in this way, with 1 relative informing us, “The team are very caring, when my loved one is sitting, they come down to their level to talk, and always show the same level of care and kindness.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Although care plans and risk assessments were not always person centred, staff treated people as individuals.

Staff adapted their communication to meet people’s individual needs and preferences, such as speaking in a tone and pace people could understand and giving people time to respond.

Leaders set clear expectations and monitored practice through observations and supervisions, which helped ensure care was adapted to meet people’s individual preferences.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Although some care plans and risk assessment were not always person-centred, people and their relatives told us they were involved in the care planning process, both when they moved to the service and on a regular ongoing basis.

People’s individual choices and routines were also respected. For example, staff and leaders told us individual meal choices were supported around people’s preferences, and we observed people being offered alternative meal choices at lunch-time which were respected and acted upon.

Activities and activity plans were also provided based on people’s interests, and resident meeting minutes demonstrated how people’s views regarding their activities were respected and led to future changes.

People’s views were also sought from regular surveys. Leaders reviewed these to inform future practice.

Where people were unable to make decisions for themselves, staff got to know people well and were able to present informed choices to support people in making those decisions.

This was also supported by the views of people, with 1 person informing us, “I love living here. I like to go out with [another person] and staff, but I could go out on my own if I wanted to.” Another person told us, “I get up when I want and go to bed when I want. I do most things myself, but staff will ask if I need help.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed people’s needs being responded to promptly by staff. For example, we saw people who requested support with their care needs being responded to and their wishes respected in a timely manner. People whose skin needs meant they were vulnerable to skin integrity issues, had pressure equipment and we observed people being repositioned when needed.

Staff responded promptly to call-bells activated by people requesting support and 1 person said, “I only have to press my buzzer and they're here straight away." While we observed no concerns in this area, leaders told us they were reviewing their systems to ensure they were able to monitor and audit call-bell response times more systematically in the future.

Staff appeared visible and accessible throughout the service, staff rotas reflected what leaders told us about staffing levels and a dependency assessment demonstrated an understanding of the level of support people required.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Leaders told us how the support they provided staff was based on the belief that colleagues should be respected and supported as people and not just as members of staff, and provided examples of how understanding and flexibility had been shown to staff to ensure they were able to maintain a positive work-life balance.

Most of the staff we spoke with felt supported by the provider and registered manager, with 1 staff member telling us, “Management are very approachable. I've had a few issues, both personally and professionally, and they are very good at giving advice - management have been brilliant. They’ve been great - I can't fault them.”

This meant we were assured the provider cared about and promoted a culture which considered the wellbeing of staff.