Blythe Rose Care Home Also known as 1-12948766437

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 80 (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 was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff were visible, warm and caring in their interactions, and families repeatedly described them as, “Brilliant”, “Kind”, “Wonderful” and “A joy to be around”. People and their relatives told us staff protected privacy and dignity at all times. For example, one relative described how staff gently asked them to step outside during personal care to ensure the person’s dignity was maintained. People consistently echoed this, with one person saying, “My privacy is respected 100%,” and relatives highlighting an exceptionally caring ethos where staff went out of their way to support comfort, dignity and emotional wellbeing. Families also spoke about the thoughtful, personalised approaches staff used to encourage engagement, such as drawing on someone’s familiar interests to help them feel ready for personal care in a respectful and dignified way. One relative told us she felt she would, “Never be able to find the level of care offered at the home anywhere else”. Others described feeling welcomed, reassured and cared for themselves, noting that staff paid attention to small details, like offering favourite snacks or creating comforting routines, that made a meaningful difference. One relative said, “I thank God that these people are so caring… they look after the relatives too,” while another added, “I trust staff – I don’t have a bad word to say about them.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff recognised when someone became upset and responded promptly and sensitively. One person shared, “It’s like a home from home and that takes a lot of beating”. Relatives told us this showed how well staff understood what might trigger distress. Families consistently described regular staff as knowing people, “Inside out”, with one relative explaining they could visit, “Whenever I want,” and felt relieved because they could, “Absolutely trust [the staff] to look after [the person].” People were encouraged to take part in personalised activities, and a relative told us the, “Activities worker was brilliant,” offering one‑to‑one sessions such as painting. Relatives praised the activities team for keeping families informed about what people had been doing. Care plans reflected what mattered to people, such as flower arranging or listening to their favourite music. During our observations we saw staff take their time, they shared gentle humour and made sure people had what they needed; one person told us, “[staff name] is lovely… they know what I like,” and said staff, “Look after you.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff supported people to maintain their independence and encouraged them to do as much as they were able, which families told us was handled politely and respectfully. One relative shared staff encouraged them to let their family member eat independently, explaining the person was capable of doing it themselves. The relative added, “They genuinely do encourage independence.” People had access to their own space, and the service considered the least restrictive options. For example, some individuals were given fobs so they could move freely around parts of the building which were otherwise restricted. Staff promoted choice throughout the day, showing people clothing options, offering different food items and adjusting the timing of continence care to suit people’s preferences. Relatives told us people chose where to spend their time, moving between communal and quieter areas depending on how they felt. People also told us that they could get up or go to bed when they wanted. Another relative said the service encouraged their family member to use continence wear while still prompting them to use the toilet which, “Upheld [the person’s] dignity while maintaining [the person’s] independence.” Relatives also described how staff responded to food preferences, providing alternatives when someone did not want what was on the menu. However, some people told us that although the food was, “Okay”, there was limited choice, with one person saying, “There is no choice as such – you have what they want you to have.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed warm interactions where staff reassured individuals and redirected them sensitively, for example by offering a cup of tea. During the assessment we found, on two occasions, call bells were not within reach; however, acoustic monitoring had been put in place for these individuals. This technology detects sounds that may indicate distress and alerts staff, with escalation systems if alerts are not answered. Mental capacity assessments had been completed for people unable to consent to this monitoring, ensuring the approach was lawful and tailored. Not all people used acoustic monitoring, and sensitivity levels were adjusted according to individual risk. Daily audits showed most staff responses were within six minutes, and our observations identified no concerns about staff responsiveness. Most relatives told us staff were available when needed, with comments such as, “The staff always respond to [the person]” and, “They are always there when you need them.” One person shared shouting for staff was easier for them and, “Staff came quickly.” However, some people reported mixed experiences with call‑bell response times, one relative said they felt response times were an issue and had, “Pressed the emergency buzzer in the past to get staff attention.”

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt valued and well supported, and described a positive working culture where colleagues looked after one another. Many said the provider promoted their wellbeing, with one staff member explaining reasonable adjustments were made for them following a period of absence and another saying management had been, “Accommodating and supportive,” while they adjusted to working in the UK. Staff told us they felt happy coming to work and described the team as, “Close‑knit”, with a staff member calling the service there, “Second home” and saying the positive culture has helped them personally. Staff felt managers were approachable, flexible with staff needs and encouraged them to take breaks. Staff felt their contributions were recognised, and initiatives such as ’employee of the month’ were described as meaningful, with staff pleased to see their names nominated. Several staff spoke with pride about their roles, saying the most rewarding part was building relationships and feeling trusted by families.