Blenheim Lodge

We found the following examples of good practice.

The staff were following up to date infection prevention and control guidance to help people to stay safe.

Staff were helping people to occupy their time, whilst maintaining their safety. Staff were providing additional one to one activities to people in their rooms and visited them frequently to maintain comfort and provide social stimulation.

The staff were supporting people with social distancing. There were posters around the building and some furniture had been re-arranged to enable people to socialise safely.

Staff assisted people to keep in touch with family and friends through phone and video calls. Visitors could also book appointments to visit people in a safe way.

The manager was communicating with people, staff and family members regularly to make sure everyone had an understanding of precautions being taken, and how to keep people safe.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

At the last inspection in October 2015 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good :

The provider had systems and processes in place to keep people safe and minimise the risk of abuse. All the people we spoke to told us they felt safe in the home and with the staff who supported them.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs in a relaxed manner. We reviewed the staff rotas and saw staff numbers were consistently maintained and there was a balanced skill mix of staff on at all times.

People continued to receive effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. People’s health was monitored and it was clear from people’s comments and care records action was taken when people were unwell. One person was not feeling well and the doctor had been to see them. They said “I just have a cold. I feel rotten. But they are looking after me very well. You get special attention when you are poorly.”

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.

People said they were supported by kind and caring staff. Everyone we spoke with was very positive about the staff. People said staff were “friendly” and “absolutely wonderful.”

People received care that was responsive to their needs and personalised to their wishes and preferences. People were able to make choices about all aspects of their day to day lives.

The service was well run by a registered manager who had the skills and experience to run the home so people received high quality person-centred care. The manager led a team of senior staff who shared their commitment to high standards of care and clear vision of the type of home they hoped to create for people. “We want to ensure people are respected, have their dignity maintained at all times. We want a homely, friendly service where people make their own choices.”

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

This is the summary of what we found:

On the day of our inspection at Blenheim Lodge 28 people were living there. We spoke to 12 people living at the home, three relatives and eight members of staff.

Is the service safe?

We observed people were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Eight people were able to tell us they "felt safe" and "well cared for" living at the home. People told us they knew they could "trust" the staff who were always kind and respectful to them. We noted that appropriate safeguarding arrangements were in place in the form of safeguarding and whistleblowing policies. All staff had attended training in the Mental Health Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberties. We saw evidence of this in staff files.

CQC monitors the operation of Deprivation of Liberties which applies to care homes. We noted no applications had needed to be submitted and proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. We observed all of the people living at the Blenheim Lodge at the time of the inspection had the capacity to make their own decisions.

We observed there were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of people living at the home. The registered manager and care supervisor were on call in case of emergencies. We noted that staff records were accurate and complete. We saw evidence that staff had the experience and skills needed to support people in their care at the home. We observed emergency procedures were in place in the event of fire. We noted fire evacuation training was up to date and documented in staff files.

Is the service effective?

We found the service was effective in meeting people's needs. We observed staff at Blenheim Lodge interacted well with people. It was evident that staff were well known to people at the home. One person said "When I first came here I could not walk on my own. The staff gave me a wonderful walking aid and lots of support and now I can walk independently. I go out to the shops on my own every day and do the shopping for my friends who are not as independent as I am. I am so grateful as the home has given me my life back". We spoke to a family member of a person at the home. The person said "It is difficult for the home as my relative would happily stay in bed all day. The staff are wonderful as they ensure my relative does get up and care for themselves but in a way that promotes their dignity and self-esteem.

Is the service caring?

People told us "It is wonderful here". One person said "I used to come here for respite care every year and I really liked the atmosphere of the home and the staff cared for me so well. When I could no longer manage on my own I decided I would come and live at Blenheim Lodge permanently and it is the best thing I ever did". We reviewed six care plans and noted each care plan contained a comprehensive assessment of each person's care and support needs. One person told us "The care supervisor spent a long time with me when I first came into the home. They explained everything to me and I felt I was involved in the planning of my own care plan". We spoke to a family member of a person at the home who told us "I am always impressed at how well the home cares for my relative who is so happy and well cared for".

Is the service responsive?

Staff told us it was essential to the care and wellbeing of people living at the home to be responsive to their care and support needs. We noted the home supported people to be as independent as they were able to. We noted there were a wide range of activities to support people's independence. People's ability to be involved was assessed daily. One person said "I really enjoy the exercise classes but I am not always able to join in if I am feeling tired. The staff were always responsive to my needs and I choose what I feel like doing each day". The care supervisor told us the home was supported by local GP services who visited the home on a regular basis and were available to provide advice and support when required.

Is the service well-led?

The senior carer told us the registered manager was on leave at the time or our inspection. We observed that staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home. Staff demonstrated throughout the visit that people were supported to live full and independent lives within their medical condition. We reviewed the feedback from quality assurance surveys completed by people living at the home and their relatives. We noted people had commented favourably on the care, support and management of the service. People said "I have very good care and nothing is ever too much trouble". Another person said "I know if I had a problem I could always talk to the manager or the care supervisor".

We noted that staff received regular supervision and appraisal and in-service training. This was recorded in staff files and in the central training records held by the registered manager. This demonstrated that staff were supported to give quality care to people at the home.

We spoke with eight people who used the service, to the registered manager and other staff on duty. We observed how care and support was provided to people. We looked at the homes environment and whether it met the needs of the people who lived there.

People told us they were very happy about how care and support was provided to them, and with the staff who provided that care. We were told that they had the help and assistance they needed. We observed that people had good relationships with the staff, people and staff interacted well and there was a friendly and sociable atmosphere. People told us that they liked living in the home. One said it was 'Homely and pleasant' another that they 'Couldn't ask for better.'

People told us that they liked living in the home. We were told that they were supported to continue with their lives as they wished. One person told us, 'it is my home.' Another said the home was 'Good. Lovely. Like it here.' We were told by people they had enough activities to do if they wanted to join in. We saw people enjoying the company of others, reading books, watching television and talking with staff. We were told by people how much they valued going out independently to the park, sea front or to the town if they were able to. We found that people received the support they needed to meet their physical health needs. We were given positive comments from visiting GPs about how the staff supported people to obtain the healthcare treatment they required.

People said about the staff 'friendly and helpful,' and 'always cheerful.' People were confident that staff working in the home had the skills to care for them. People also told us their comments and concerns were listened to and acted upon.