You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 2 June 2018

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 18 April 2018.

Bluebell Park is a ‘care home’ for older people, some of whom are living with sight loss and/or dementia. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Bluebell Park is registered to provide residential and nursing care for up to 64 older people living with dementia and/or a physical disability. The home was purpose-build and is on three floors divided into three communities, Memory Lane, Woodland View, and Bramble Way. There is a range of communal areas including lounges, dining rooms, and secluded gardens. On the day of our inspection visit there were 62 people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

All the people and relatives we spoke with said they would recommend the home to others. They said the home had a warm and caring atmosphere and the registered manager and staff were professional and kind. They said the staff encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves and supported them with things that they could not manage. All the interactions we saw between staff and people were warm and personalised.

People and relatives told us the home was a safe place where staff provided good quality care and support. Staff were trained in safeguarding (protecting people who use care services from abuse) and knew what to do if they were concerned about the welfare of any of the people living at the home. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and knew how to support them to stay safe.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and people did not have to wait long for assistance. Staff supported people in a knowledgeable and caring manner, providing personal care, company and reassurance where necessary. They were trained according to their roles and understood the importance of people consenting to their care and support.

All areas of the home were clean and fresh. The premises were purpose built and designed to provide a safe and spacious environment for people. People and relatives told us the food was of a good standard and quality. Lunchtime was calm and unhurried. Staff gave each person individual attention, discussing the menu choices with them and asking them what they would like. If people needed assistance with their meals staff provided this.

People had access to healthcare professionals when they needed them and staff worked closely with a range of healthcare professionals, including GPs, community nurses, dieticians, opticians, dentists and chiropodists, to ensure people’s medical needs were met. Medicines were safely managed at the home.

The home provided a wide range of group and individual activities for people to take part in if they wanted to. An activity board was displayed in the entrance hall showing the activities available each day. People told us they enjoyed the activities and looked forward to visiting entertainers and trips out.

People told us they knew how to make a complaint and would be confident to do this if they had any concerns. The registered manager and staff said they continually checked that people were happy with the service and said that by doing this they hoped to create a culture where people felt safe to speak out if they had any concerns.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Records showed that ongoing improvements were made and these were documented on an action plan which was regularly

Inspection areas



Updated 2 June 2018

The service was safe.

There were systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm and staff were knowledgeable about these.

Risks were managed and reviewed regularly to keep people safe from harm, injury and infection.

People were supported to take their medicines safely and the provider was committed to reviewing and learning from accidents and incidents.



Updated 2 June 2018

The service was effective.

People's needs were assessed and met by staff who were skilled and had completed the training they needed to provide effective care.

People were supported to maintain their health and well-being and their nutritional needs were met.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, including gaining consent to care and people's right to decline their care.



Updated 2 June 2018

The service was caring.

The staff were kind, caring and compassionate and understood the importance of building good relationships with the people they supported.

The home had an established staff team so people got to know the staff supporting them.

Staff supported people to be independent and to make choices. People�s privacy and dignity was respected.



Updated 2 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People were supported to be involved in the planning of their care. They were provided with support and information to make decisions and choices about how their care was provided.

A complaints policy was in place and information readily available to raise concerns. People knew how to complain if they needed to.



Updated 2 June 2018

The service was well-led

The registered manager provided effective leadership and ensured staff received the support they needed to meet people�s needs.

Feedback from people and relatives was used to drive improvements and develop the service.

Comprehensive audits were completed regularly at the home to review the quality of care provided.