You are here

Bloomfield Court Requires improvement

We are carrying out a review of quality at Bloomfield Court. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 31 October 2018

This inspection took place on 17 and 20 August 2018 and was unannounced. We last inspected the service on 26 September 2017 when we carried out a focussed inspection to follow up on concerns in relation to medicines management which had resulted in a warning notice being issued to the provider. At that inspection we found improvements had been made, and the provider had followed their plan and met the legal requirements in that area.

Bloomfield Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Bloomfield Court accommodates 47 people in one adapted building, across three floors.

There was a registered manager but they were not present during the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Systems were in place to ensure concerns of a safeguarding nature were reported, recorded and acted upon. Staff were aware of the risks to people and how to manage those risks. Management were responding to concerns raised regarding staffing levels, the deployment of staff across and this had not been resolved at this time. Systems were in placed to ensure people were supported by staff who had been safely recruited.

Improvements had been made in respect of medicines management and staff had received training and their competencies checked in this area. People were protected from the spread of infection and where incidents and accidents took place, lessons were learnt and action was taken.

People were involved in the pre-assessment of their care which provided staff with the information they needed to meet people’s needs. Staff felt well trained but concerns had been identified by management in respect of staff induction and action was being taken to rectify this.

People were supported to receive a balanced diet and access healthcare services in order to meet their needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were described as caring and compassionate and people had warm, positive relationships with many of the staff who supported them. People’s choices about how they spent their day were routinely respected and people were encouraged where possible, to retain a level of independence. People were treated with dignity and respect.

Care records reflected people’s personal preferences and they were supported by staff who were aware of what was important to them. Management acknowledged that activities available required development and plans were being made to improve this part of the service.

People were confident that if they raised complaints they would be acted on and listened to. Where complaints had been received they had been investigated and acted upon.

A lack of oversight of the service had resulted in a number of concerns being raised. The management team had responded to the concerns and a number of measures were in place to improve care delivery. Staff were on board with the vision for the service and work was underway to drive improvement.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

Concerns regarding staffing levels and the deployment of staff were acknowledged by the provider and solutions sought but had not been resolved People were supported by staff who were aware of the risks to them. Procedures were in place to ensure safeguarding concerns were reported and acted on. People were supported to receive their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was effective.

Management recognised that not all staff had received an induction to a standard they would expect and had arranged for all staff to complete their induction again. People were supported to maintain good health and have access to a healthy diet. Staff routinely obtained people’s consent prior to offering support.

Caring

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was caring.

People described staff as caring and compassionate. People were involved in the planning of their care, encouraged to retain their independence where possible and were treated with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was responsive.

The provider acknowledged there was a lack of activities for people to enjoy and were working towards developing this area. People were involved in the planning and review of their care. Staff knew people well and what was important to them. There was a system in place to deal with complaints.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

Monitoring and overview of the quality of the service had failed to identify a number of concerns. A management team were in place to address the concerns raised and drive improvement across the home. Staff who were aware of the vision for the service, were on board with this and felt supported by members of the management group.