Bloomfield Court

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.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 were effectively at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

Information contained within people’s care records was not always person-centred. For example, where people required support to manage identified needs, their care plans and risk assessments did not always include information about these and, where information was documented, it did not always contain sufficient detail or guidance to ensure people’s individualised needs could be met.

Despite this, people and relatives informed us they had been involved in the care planning process and people were treated as individuals by staff, which was evidenced with the meal and activity choices people had based on individual preferences.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Although there were systems and processes in place to ensure people’s care was regularly reviewed, as has been detailed in other sections of this report, we were not always assured this adequately ensured people’s needs were always sufficiently detailed in their care records.

We also viewed safety event records which detailed incidents of risk and harm which had not been analysed by leaders to support understanding and learning. This meant we were not always assured the service had a good understanding of people’s health needs.

However, despite the gaps in people’s care records, staff told us they were aware of people’s health needs and how they supported people to meet these needs in consultation with external healthcare professionals. People and their relatives told us staff worked closely with families and external health professionals when this was required.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We also observed staff had a good awareness of how people’s communication needs can be affected by particular situations and how they were feeling. For example, staff were seen anticipating a potential barrier to a person being able to communicate and providing them with the opportunity to communicate their feelings in a different environment, which enabled the person to feel more comfortable.

Communication care plans were in place and most detailed how people chose to communicate and some documented how information should be made available to them.

The home used visual information to support understanding and independence. Clear signage helped people navigate the service, including bathing and showering areas. Posters explained how to raise concerns, and regular newsletters kept people and relatives informed about life in the home.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People told us they were involved in their care planning processes, and people were provided with regular opportunities in which they could raise matters with leaders, such as within resident meetings or via people satisfaction surveys.

People and relatives told us staff and leaders keep them informed about changes, with 1 relative saying, “I tell the staff all about my loved one and you can tell that they have listened and acted upon it.”

People, relatives and staff told us they felt able to raise concerns, who these needed to be raised with and they were confident it would be dealt with. One person said, “I've not had to make any complaints but would go to the manager if I'd need to. There’s been the odd minor issue, but the staff sort it pretty quickly.” A relative told us, “If I ever have a complaint, I would take it to the manager and I know they would listen to me. However, I cannot see a reason to complain.” While 1 staff member informed us, “The managers would act on any concerns.”

There was a complaints policy, we observed how leaders responded to complaints promptly and how these were shared with staff.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staffing levels were based on people’s assessed dependency needs and we found staff to be visible and responsive to people. For example, staff adapted their communication with people by using clear language and visual prompts to aid people’s understanding of information. People with reduced mobility needs were also supported by staff providing walking aids and assistance to move safely around the home.

People and relatives told us the service was accessible and responsive. One person told us, “The managers have been up this morning to say hello and check everything is ok.”

Where people could not access community services easily, staff arranged visiting health professionals, such as GPs, dentists, and chiropodists, to attend the home. Staff also worked flexibly around people’s routines and health needs to ensure timely access to care.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

An equality and diversity policy was in place and staff had received equality and diversity training, which meant the service was aware of some of the challenges people faced in experiencing equitable outcomes.

Staff tailored support to people, so they had comparable experiences, regardless of disability, health condition, communication needs, or background. For example, staff provided additional mobility support so people could access communal areas and activities, while others received adapted communication support to fully participate in care planning and daily decisions. Staff worked with external health professionals to promptly address health needs, helping reduce avoidable deterioration.

People achieved outcomes comparable to others, including maintained independence, improved comfort and consistent access to social opportunities. People and relatives told us staff treated everyone fairly and responded consistently to individual needs, demonstrating equity in both experiences and outcomes.

People were not always 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.

Although people had death and dying care plans, we found the information contained within these to be mixed. For example, some people’s care plans did not contain relevant information, with 1 care plan simply stating it needed to be discussed with the person and family. Some people’s care plans did not make reference to life-limiting health conditions people had, and a person’s wish to proceed to the next stage of their care. Furthermore, we also saw a person’s care plan did not indicate whether they had been involved with their funeral plan.

However, some care plans did include relevant and person-centred information, which included consented funeral arrangements and preferences.