Blossomfield Rose Care Home

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 71 (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 was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being and communication needs with them.

Thorough pre-admission assessments were completed to ensure the service could meet people’s needs safely and effectively before support commenced. These assessments considered people’s individual needs, preferences, desired outcomes and any potential risks, helping to build a comprehensive understanding of the support required. Information gathered during the assessment process was used to develop personalised, person-centred care plans that guided the delivery of care and support. Assessments and care plans were reviewed regularly and updated whenever people’s needs changed, helping to ensure support remained appropriate, responsive and effective.

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.

Nationaly recognised assessment tools were used to support safe and effective care, with specialist advice and input sought when required. Where people were at risk of poor nutrition or dehydration, appropriate monitoring tools were in place to record food and fluid intake and help ensure their needs were met.

People’s risks relating to falls and skin integrity were assessed using recognised assessment tools. Where concerns were identified, these were appropriately evaluated and referrals made to relevant healthcare professionals or support services as required. The risk assessments reviewed were comprehensive and clearly recorded, detailing the measures in place to reduce identified risks, including the use of any necessary equipment to support people's safety and wellbeing.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's assessed needs and told us they were kept informed of any changes through effective communication systems, including handovers and regular updates. This helped to ensure care was delivered consistently and in line with people's current needs.

Kitchen staff had a good understanding of people's dietary requirements, preferences and cultural needs. They met with people when they moved into the service and worked closely with them to ensure meals reflected their individual choices and nutritional needs. We saw an example of person-centred practice where one person, who had been featured in local and national media, shared traditional family recipes from their culture with the head chef through a series of cooking sessions, helping to shape menu options and celebrate their heritage.

People told us they were able to access food and drinks whenever they wished and felt involved in discussions about their dietary needs. One relative told us, "[Name of person] is vegetarian but will eat fish. They now have a mashed diet due to swallowing difficulties. There is a choice of meals and plenty to drink in their room." Feedback from people and relatives indicated they were satisfied with the quality, choice and availability of food and drink provided by the service.

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 told us they worked effectively as a team and felt well supported by the management team. They described positive working relationships across the service and explained how they collaborated with a range of healthcare and social care professionals to help meet people’s health, wellbeing and care needs. Records demonstrated regular engagement with external agencies and professionals, supporting a coordinated approach to care and positive outcomes for people.

Communication within the staff team was effective, with handovers, daily records and other communication systems used to ensure important information was shared and people received consistent support. Relatives told us staff maintained regular contact with them and kept them informed about matters affecting their loved ones, helping them to remain involved in their care and wellbeing.

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.

People told us staff knew them well and understood their health and wellbeing needs. They said staff supported them to access healthcare services when needed and encouraged them to make choices that promoted their health, including those relating to diet, exercise and overall wellbeing. People also spoke positively about the food provided, describing a good range of choices and telling us the service responded well to their dietary requirements, cultural preferences and individual requests, including portion sizes and modified food textures where required.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s medical conditions and the impact these had on their daily lives. They told us they supported people to maintain and develop their independence wherever possible, while ensuring appropriate assistance was available when needed. Care plans included concise profile summaries that provided key information about each person’s background, preferences and support needs. These quick reference guides helped ensure new and agency staff could quickly understand people’s individual requirements and provide consistent, person-centred care.

People’s health needs were monitored and reviewed regularly, with appropriate support in place to respond to any changes in a timely manner. People were supported to attend routine and specialist healthcare appointments and benefited from health reviews to help maintain their wellbeing. Staff also encouraged people to maintain a balanced diet and adequate hydration, promoting healthy lifestyle choices. Where people had specialist nutritional needs, these were managed appropriately and in line with professional guidance to help ensure safe and effective care.

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.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s assessed needs and were able to describe how they monitored and responded to changes in people’s health and wellbeing. Systems were in place to monitor clinical outcomes, and where people were at risk of malnutrition or dehydration, staff used appropriate monitoring tools to record food and fluid intake and ensure any concerns were identified and acted upon promptly. Clinical monitoring tools were also used to support the ongoing assessment of people’s healthcare needs. Care plans were recorded using a digital system that allowed for oversight by all appropriate staff members.

People told us they were happy with the care and support they received and consistently described being supported by staff who knew them well and understood their individual needs and preferences.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

We identified that decision-specific mental capacity assessments were not always recorded for some people where these were required. This meant there was not always clear evidence to demonstrate how capacity had been assessed in relation to specific decisions. Furthermore, it highlighted some staff members required further training and development to ensure they fully understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act. We raised this with the registered manager and nominated individual, who responded promptly and took immediate action to address our concerns. Following the inspection, we received updated mental capacity assessments, and the provider confirmed that additional training would be delivered to staff to strengthen understanding and completion of decision-specific mental capacity assessments.

We observed staff seeking people's consent before providing support and people told us they were routinely asked for their agreement before receiving personal care. Throughout the inspection, staff demonstrated respect for people's privacy and dignity by knocking on bedroom doors before entering and addressing people in their preferred manner.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and were able to explain the importance of supporting people to make their own decisions wherever possible. We found evidence that the provider was working with the local authority to further develop its processes and ensure there was clear, evidence-based rationale where a new DoLS application was not required for individuals whose circumstances had changed.