Bloomfield Court

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Leaders worked closely with people, their relatives and staff to create an empowering and inclusive culture. People, staff and relative meetings were completed by leaders on a regular basis, which not only shared relevant information about how the service was striving to provide good and safe care to people, but also shared the values and future direction of the staff team and home.

We saw staff demonstrating a good understanding of these values when providing care to people. For example, people were supported with compassion, understanding and teamwork. Staff spoke positively about the culture, with one saying, “We support each other. It’s generally a happy place to work.”

Leaders also used satisfaction surveys to obtain the views of people to shape how people received care. We saw examples of ‘You said, we did’, which demonstrated how people’s suggestions were valued and acted upon.

There was a complaints and equality and diversity policy in place, staff received training in these areas and neither people nor staff informed us they did not feel comfortable sharing their views with leaders should they have concerns, with relatives also saying staff kept them updated with changes with their relation’s needs.

Leaders did not always demonstrate the skills and knowledge to lead some aspects of the service effectively.

Our findings were mixed in this area. For example, leaders had mostly failed to identify and / or effectively address the concerns we have detailed within other sections of our report, which included: incident analysis, staff training and care records not always providing information which accurately reflected people’s needs and risks. This meant there was an increased risk to people living at the service.

However, as also detailed within other sections of this report, leaders also provided clear and effective leadership in other areas, which included creating an empowering, inclusive and responsive culture; an environment that was largely safe; and good oversight in areas.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Leaders actively sought feedback from people, relatives and staff, and acted on it. The registered manager and deputy manager promoted an open culture where concerns were raised confidently and addressed promptly.

Staff had clear routes to raise issues, including supervisions, meetings, surveys and day-to-day communication. Leaders told us staff were aware of the importance of and process for raising concerns, and this was discussed with them within their supervisions. Staff we spoke with did not tell us they had any issues in raising concerns and were confident should they need to do so, they would be dealt with.

People were also provided with regular opportunities where they could raise concerns should they wish to, and when we spoke with people they told they were happy with their care and they knew who to speak to should they ever have any concerns.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider informed us they valued a diverse workforce which they treated fairly. Staff supported this by telling us they were happy working with the provider and felt they were treated fairly.

There were processes in place to consider staff member’s individual needs, such as supervisions and team meetings.

The provider did not always have clear systems of good governance.

Risks at the service had not always been identified and effectively acted upon to promote safety. For example, we found effective systems were not always in place to ensure: the appropriate analysis of accidents and incidents; appropriate staffing training; and care records provided information which accurately reflected people’s needs and risks. This meant governance systems were not always effective and exposed people to the risk of harm.

However, there were examples of good governance in other areas, such as ensuring safe systems of care in relation to the transition process for people before they moved to the service and safe medicines management.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

Leaders were aware of what partners and stakeholders were available to the service and how to share information and access this support. For example, when accidents and incidents occurred, where this was appropriate, information would be reported to healthcare professionals.

Leaders actively developed community links and supported people to access local activities and services, promoting inclusion, independence and wellbeing. For example, visits to the service by a local church and school took place, day centres were used by people and the home provided local food bank donations.

The provider did not focus on continuous learning and improvement across the service.

Leaders did not always have an effective awareness and understanding of audit processes and how these could be used to effectively to identify concerns and mitigate risks to achieve continuous learning and improvement.

As a result, leaders had mostly not identified and effectively acted upon areas of the service which required improvement, such as those we identified ourselves during our assessment. This meant there were some missed opportunities to learn and make improvements to the overall quality and safety of the service.

However, as detailed within other areas of this report, leaders used audit processes in other areas effectively to mitigate risks and achieve improvements.