Blythe Rose Care Home Also known as 1-12948766437

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before moving into the service, and families told us they felt involved, with one relative explaining, “There was a thorough assessment, and I felt involved all the way”. The assessment pathway was structured, with multidisciplinary discussions, family visits and a clinical review meeting to confirm whether the service could meet a person’s needs. Care plans were detailed and showed staff had a strong understanding of people’s preferences, communication needs and potential triggers for distress. However, some people living at the service were not familiar with their care plans, sharing comments such as, “I believe there is a care plan in place,” and, “I haven’t seen my care plan, but I believe there is one”. While most documentation was clear, some clinical plans needed more specific instruction, such as clearer guidance on catheter bag use and frequency of change. There were occasional inconsistencies between written plans and recorded care tasks; however, there was no evidence this impacted the quality of care delivered. Families told us care plans were reviewed regularly and we saw evidence a resident of the day initiative was completed monthly. One staff member told us, “Everyone has resident of the day… this involves reviewing the care plan, and ensuring support is reviewed across all departments, not just the care side. For example, activities, kitchen and housekeeping.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff understood people’s clinical needs and completed relevant training, such as recognising and managing leg ulcers. We saw positive outcomes, including significant improvements for people with complex wounds. One relative told us they felt confident in staff, saying they, “manage it well” and the home was, “really good for skin integrity”. People’s nutritional needs were also well understood, supported by regular weight monitoring, clear International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) guidance in the kitchen and staff trained in safe eating and drinking practices. Most relatives felt people had enough to eat and drink and noted recent improvements in meals. Where any negative feedback was shared in relation nutrition, we found evidence people were supported in line with their needs, with staff referring to external healthcare professionals as needed. The provider acknowledged all feedback and advised they would use it to strengthen future practice.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff and external professionals worked together to support people, with weekly multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings providing consistent oversight of people’s needs and enabling joint decision‑making. Health professionals described strong relationships the home had with community nursing, mental health and end‑of‑life care teams and said the service had become an important part of the local pathway by offering a, “Therapeutic alternative to hospital admission”. Health professionals described the MDT model as unique within care homes and particularly effective for people with complex needs, including those who had struggled to remain in other settings. During our observation of an MDT meeting, the team highlighted proactive communication, clear protocols on when to call for support and reliable follow‑through from staff, with alternative approaches used before medication. One health professional shared, “I can leave knowing that what I have asked to be done, will be done…They take responsibility.” One person’s experience showed the impact of this teamwork: after living with severe leg ulcers for several years prior to moving into the home, one ulcer healed completely through coordinated work of different health services. Health professionals consistently praised the staff team, describing them as responsive, well‑trained and committed, with one stating they, “Wouldn’t be here if they weren’t doing a good job.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Weekly multidisciplinary meetings helped ensure people received the right input at the right time; for instance, staff and professionals worked together to support a family to reconsider dementia medicines options in a way that better aligned with the person’s needs. People had regular access to the GP, and staff worked with health specialists to review medicines, consider alternatives such as liquid medicines and respond quickly when health needs changed. People were encouraged to stay active, taking part in exercise‑based activities, going for walks or being supported in their wheelchairs to spend time outdoors. Relatives told us staff understood people well, recognised early signs of distress and could often de‑escalate situations before they became challenging. The service also considered the least restrictive options, such as reviewing postural support equipment to help a person with advanced dementia safely and comfortably access communal areas while maintaining dignity and reducing risk. Staff said they worked closely as a team and supported one another, and relatives commented regular staff knew their family members well and encouraged familiar routines such as listening to music. One person who arrived unable to mobilise well, regained enough strength through staff support to return to their own home.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Weekly multidisciplinary reviews helped the service monitor people’s care and treatment effectively, leading to continuous improvements and positive outcomes. The service monitored people’s physical health closely. For example, people were weighed each month, and staff analysed any changes to identify whether people were improving or required further support. Where concerns were identified, clear follow‑up actions were recorded, such as arranging dental reviews or adding someone to the GP list for assessment. This approach ensured people’s changing needs were recognised promptly and interventions were put in place to support their wellbeing, helping to maintain consistent and person‑centred outcomes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff supported people to understand their rights around consent and respected the choices they made. People were asked for their consent before care tasks were carried out, and when someone was unable to give consent, mental capacity assessments were completed, seeking input from the persons legal representative, or completing a best‑interest decision for the specific decision. Staff encouraged people to engage in personal care in ways that felt familiar and were respectful. A relative described how a staff member used creativity and humour to support personal care, explaining by turning shower time into a “Game” linked to the person’s love of football, staff were able to motivate and support them to agree to personal care without distress. This showed staff understood people well and used person‑centred techniques to help them make decisions in line with their preferences.