Blue Fountain Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 generally made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment and involved them in decisions about how their care was delivered.

Care plans were detailed and personalised. They described people’s routines, preferences, communication needs, cultural and religious considerations, and what was important to them. We saw clear evidence care was tailored, for example supporting people to choose how and when personal care was provided, maintaining long standing routines such as preferred meals or activities, and adapting support to promote independence. Care plans were reviewed when people’s needs changed, such as when mobility deteriorated or additional support was required.

People and relatives told us staff knew them well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff consistently sought consent, respected people’s right to refuse care and used least restrictive approaches.

The provider generally coordinated care well and worked effectively with other professionals to support people’s needs.

We saw strong evidence of partnership working with GPs, district nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, local authority teams and specialist services. Staff escalated concerns promptly when people’s health deteriorated and worked with professionals to adjust care packages, equipment or treatment. Hospital passports and clear referral information supported safe transitions between services. Most people experienced continuity of care and told us that seeing familiar staff helped them feel safe and reassured. The provider supported this through team‑based rotas and shadowing arrangements to promote consistency. However, on occasion relatives reported changes in staff and delays that affected continuity, although this was not typical of the service. Where concerns were raised, the registered manager responded and took action to address issues, recognising that continuity could not always be maintained. While communication helped manage expectations, these occasional disruptions meant some people did not always experience fully consistent care.

The provider made sure people had the information they needed to understand their care and support.

Care plans contained clear, accessible information about people’s health needs, medicines, risks and how staff should support them. Communication passports were used to explain how people preferred to communicate, including for people with sensory impairments. Information about consent, capacity and best interest decisions was recorded where appropriate.

People and relatives told us they knew who to contact if they had concerns and felt confident approaching the office or manager. The provider used written communication to support people with memory difficulties. Where audits identified gaps in information within daily records or survey feedback, the provider analysed these fully to support learning and improvement.

The provider listened to people and involved them in decisions about their care.

People and relatives told us staff listened to them, respected their wishes and responded when they raised concerns. Feedback showed that complaints were taken seriously, apologies were offered where needed and actions were taken to resolve issues. Care plans were written with people and, where appropriate, their relatives or advocates.

The provider used surveys, reviews and informal check ins to gather feedback. Records showed that feedback was analysed to identify themes and drive improvement. There was evidence and people reported feeling involved in their care.

The provider made sure people could access care in a way that met their needs.

The service supported people with a wide range of needs, including physical disabilities, sensory impairments, dementia and complex health conditions. Assessments considered language, culture, religion and communication needs. Staff made reasonable adjustments, such as using sign language, written communication or adapting routines, to ensure people could access care.

People were supported to attend appointments, access the community and maintain social connections.

The provider made sure people had fair experiences and outcomes.

Care planning and delivery focused on individual outcomes, such as maintaining independence, managing risks and supporting people’s wellbeing. Staff gave examples where support enabled people to regain mobility, remain at home, or continue meaningful activities. Equality and diversity were respected, including religious and cultural practices.

Most people and relatives reported positive outcomes and high levels of satisfaction. However, some feedback highlighted differences in experience depending on which staff attended. For example, where some staff were more interactive than others. This meant people did not always have consistency at all times.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes in a timely way, meaning they did not consistently have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Planning around end of life was often reactive rather than proactive, and documentation did not always fully capture anticipated changes in people’s needs. While clinical anticipatory information was recorded, records did not consistently include personalised details such as people’s wishes, preferences, or needs reflecting their faith, beliefs, or cultural or personal values. We raised this with the registered manager who explained that in some cases people are cared for a very short period or are not in a condition to have these conversations. The registered manager agreed they would seek more personalised information from people and relatives to improve documentation and end of life experience.