Blossom High

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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 service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The registered manager told us people were fully assessed before they started using the service and this was regularly reviewed with them and their relatives. A person-centred care package was put in place and regularly reviewed. Staff had access to up-to-date information on people’s care via a printed copy that was kept in peoples’ home. A member of staff told us, “We get regular updates from the manager if any changes have been made to peoples care plans.” A relative told us, “The care plan is kept in our house. I have read through it; it is worded in a very respectful way. When it was reviewed, I was involved, I am very happy with the care plan.”

The service 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 knew people well and how they wished to be supported with food and drink. Assessments were in place to help staff recognise the support people required and staff had undergone extensive training to recognise if people were choking and how they could intervene. Where required the service liaised with health professionals to ensure people were receiving the correct support with their food and nutrition.

A relative told us, “[Relative] sees the same staff frequently; new staff work alongside one of the regular carers so [relative] can get to know them.” Another relative told us, “The company has listened to me; I have explained to them what [relative] is like, and they understand how I want them cared for.”

The service 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 had access to the information they needed to work with people and where required, helped them safely transition between healthcare teams. The registered manager told us they had developed good links with other health professionals. Regular staff meetings, management meetings and supervision sessions were all in place to ensure staff were provided with current information to work together to support people. A staff member told us, “Management have an open-door policy, and we can discuss anything with them at any time.”

The service 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 need for care and support. A member of staff told us, “I familiarise myself with a person’s care plan and get to know the person before supporting them. I want to make sure they can live their best life.” A person told us, “The staff respect that I want to be as independent as possible.” A relative told us, “We have no concerns. I am very happy.”

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both people’s and clinical expectations. The registered manager told us they had several systems in place to help them monitor outcomes for people. This included asking people for their feedback through telephone monitoring calls, regular visits, and the completion of surveys on their care experience. A relative told us, “I feel confident that if I had any problems to ring the manager and I know they would try to sort it.”

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff understood the need to gain consent from people before they engaged in providing care. The registered manager obtained signed consent from people or their next of kin when care packages were agreed. Staff had received training on gaining consent and this was discussed with them during meetings and supervision. People’s consent was obtained for their care and support needs. A relative told us, “Staff are professional, and the manager always takes their time to discuss any concerns with us.”

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff understood the need to gain consent from people to support them with their care needs and in making decisions. Staff told us, “I have completed my training, and I understand the importance of gaining consent from the people I support.”

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. When people receive care and treatment in their own homes an application must be made to the Court of Protection for them to authorise people to be deprived of their liberty.

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty had the appropriate legal authority and were being met. We found staff practice reflected the principles of the MCA. People were encouraged to make their own decisions.