Bloomfield Court

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

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

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 always make sure people’s assessed needs were effectively reviewed.

Leaders told us what the care planning process was from the point people were assessed for their suitability for the service. We were informed the information leaders obtained at this stage was used to ensure people’s care plans and risks assessments contained accurate information about their needs and how these needed to be met. However, we found some care plans and assessment we viewed did not always contain relevant information about people’s health and care needs. For example, where people had identified health conditions, they did not always have a care plan or assessment which detailed how these conditions presented and impacted them, nor clear and specific guidance to staff on how they could support people to meet needs associated with these conditions. Staff also told us information regarding how people’s health needs were met needed to be added to their care plans. This meant people were at risk of their needs not always being detailed in their care records and understood by and met by staff.

However, people told us they were asked by staff if they were happy with the care they received and whether they wanted anything to change, and the staff we spoke with demonstrated good knowledge of people’s needs and how these needed to be met.

The provider did not always effectively plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them.

Although the provider assessed people’s needs, the documentation, review and delivery of this was not always clear or consistent, nor in-line with evidence-based good practice guidance. For example, while the service assessed people’s nutritional and eating and drinking needs, the information detailed about this was not always accurate, which meant the delivery of care in this area was not always evidence-based. This meant people were at risk of their care and treatment not being delivered to them in ways which reflected evidence-based needs.

However, people and relatives told us they were involved in creating and reviewing their care records.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

Leaders and staff worked collaboratively together and with external professionals, including health and social care teams, to meet people’s needs. This helped ensure people received the right support at the right time. People and relatives told us staff worked well together and with other services, which helped positive outcomes. One relative told us, “The team are always on the ball. Whenever my loved one needs medical attention like the GP it is arranged. Same if there is a change in medication. They liaise with the pharmacy, and the new meds are delivered. I am sure they have a hotline to the doctors because I cannot get an appointment as quick as they can.”

Staff worked together within the service and records demonstrated they communicated effectively during regular handovers and team meetings. This ensured staff were aware of people’s preferences, routines, and any changes in need. For example, staff told us and records confirmed they shared updates about changes in mobility needs.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing to enable them to live healthier lives.

As detailed elsewhere within our report, people’s care records sometimes failed to contain relevant information needed to ensure people could be clearly and consistently supported to positively manage their health and wellbeing. We found relevant guidance relating to people’s health conditions and needs was sometimes not in place or, when it was in place, did not contain the guidance staff needed so they could support people to live healthy lives. In addition to staff not having always received training to ensure they could understand and meet people’s health needs. This meant there was a risk people may not always be supported to manage their health and wellbeing.

Despite this, staff we spoke with demonstrated a good awareness of how they supported people to manage their health and wellbeing needs, with 1 staff member telling us how the approach staff use with 1 person can help ensure the person feels valued and more likely to engage with staff and external healthcare professionals which enables them to live a healthier life.

The provider did not always effectively routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

People’s care and treatment was routinely monitored by care plans and risk assessments being reviewed on a monthly basis by staff and more broadly, audited, by leaders, this monitoring was not always effective. This is because it failed to identify many of the concerns we did about the lack of relevant information contained within some of these records, and so was not always able to ensure people’s outcomes were clear and consistent. This meant people were at risk of experiencing outcomes that were not consistent.

However, there were examples of the provider effectively monitoring people’s health outcomes to support positive outcomes. We spoke with staff who told us how they monitored a person’sfluid intake and liaised with external healthcare professionals to support the person to maintain good health outcomes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Records showed mental capacity assessments were carried out for people in all areas of their care and these were reviewed on a regular basis. People told us staff respected their wishes regarding how their care was provided, with relatives also saying staff provided care based on people’s consent.

Staff training records showed staff received Mental Capacity Act (MCA) training. This was supported by our observations, which included seeing people being asked if they wanted support with tasks and staff feedback. Staff displayed a good awareness of the MCA and how they applied this to people they supported, with staff telling us, “We just do whatever people want us to do.

Relatives also told us people’s consent was sought and respected when they were provided care, with 1 relative saying, “The staff always ask for permission before they do anything with my loved one.”