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.

This is the first assessment for this service since registration. This key question has been rated 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, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

There were systems in place to monitor and review people’s care needs. Pre-assessment information was stored in people's care plans and used to inform the development of care plans and risk assessments.

However, some information in people’s care plans was inaccurate or out of date which could lead to people receiving inconsistent care. This included where a person’s mobility had improved, and the support plan stated they were still supported in bed.

We raised this with the manager during the inspection, and this was updated straightaway.

People and their loved ones reported they were involved in planning of their care, through the pre-assessment process, reviews and the provider’s ‘resident of the day’ program.

People told us if there were any changes in their care needs, their care plans were updated to reflect this and their families informed.

Staff told us they were kept informed of changes to people's care plans, which were reviewed through the ‘resident of the day’ program. People’s changing needs were also, they told us, discussed during staff handovers and at staff meetings.

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.

Clinical tools to monitor people’s food and fluids intake were in place for those that required them.

Staff we spoke with understood people's assessed needs and confirmed they were kept up to date with any changes in people's care needs, for example through handovers and communication systems in place.

Kitchen staff were aware of people's dietary needs. They met with people when they arrived at the home and worked alongside them to ensure their dietary needs and preferences were met.

People told us they were able to access food and drinks when they wanted, and any particular dietary needs were discussed with them. A person told us, “I have a special diet and love a poached egg. I spoke to the chef, and he does this for me every teatime.”

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.

We saw evidence people were supported to access a variety of healthcare services to meet their needs. This included specialised nurses and falls clinics.

Staff told us they were provided with the information they needed when people were admitted to the service and if there were any changes in people's needs.

The head chef told us they were involved in service user and team meetings and meet with people when they first arrived at the service.

A GP who looked after the health of people at the service told us staff supported people in line with their care needs, and communication with the home was good. They complimented the deputy and the team of staff for keeping them informed of people's care needs.

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.

Care plans included a quick reference guide to the relevant person’s personal background and key areas of their care needs, to support new and agency staff.

People told us staff knew their healthcare needs and supported them to access health care services and make healthier choices for example, with regard to their diet and exercise needs and preferences.

People spoke positively about the food choices made available to them and the service's ability to meet their dietary needs and preferences such as portion sizes, presentation for specialised diets and cultural needs.

Staff told us how they supported people to be as independent as possible.

Staff were able to tell us about the impact of people's underlying health conditions.

A community healthcare professional told us they felt staff knew people well and were able to identify potential risks to people's health and obtain additional support where required.

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

Staff were aware of people's needs and systems were in place to monitor clinical outcomes. Where people were at risk of malnutrition or dehydration, staff knew how to monitor their food and fluid intake. Clinical monitoring tools were used to observe people's healthcare needs.

People's care records were routinely monitored and reviewed through the provider’s 'resident of the day' program. Some of the errors in the records we had seen had not been identified in these reviews. However, these reviews had not always identified inaccurate or contradictory information in people’s care plans and risk assessments.

People told us they were happy with the care they received and were supported by staff who knew them well.

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

We observed and people told us staff obtained their consent prior to supporting them.

People told us they were always asked before they received personal care. We observed staff knocking doors before entering rooms and addressing people as they wished.

Staff had received training in Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Standards (DoLs) and had recently received refresher training on these topics.

Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were recorded, although these records did not always demonstrate decisions made on behalf of people who lacked capacity were the least restrictive option possible.