You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 18 April 2018

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 26 January 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 26 January and 8 February 2017. The inspection was unannounced. At our previous inspection in April 2015 the provider was not meeting all the regulations we checked. This was because we found area of unsafe and ineffective practice. At this inspection improvements had been made, however some further improvements were needed.

Bluebell Park Home is registered to provide nursing care for up to 64 older people living with dementia and or a physical disability. The home is divided into three communities, Memory Lane Woodland View and Bramble Way which are over three floors. Communal living areas were located on all three floors. Lifts were in place to access the first floors, as well as stairwells.

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.

Staffing levels did not ensure that there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s individual needs. People and relatives we spoke with felt people were safe at Bluebell Park. The provider had taken steps to protect people from harm. Staff had an understanding of potential abuse and their responsibility in keeping people safe.

People and relatives knew how to raise concerns. However, some relatives felt that their complaints were not always well managed and they did not feel listened to. This meant complaints were not always well managed and issues were not resolved satisfactorily.

The provider had procedures in place for the management of medicine. This showed the provider could be confident that people were always receiving the correct medicine and dose. However the provider needs to ensure the quantity of medicines into the service are recorded accurately.

Recruitment procedures ensured suitable staff were employed to work with people who used the service.

Risks to people were identified and assessed, however risk assessments were not always detailed.

We observed staff sought people's consent before they provided care and support. Some people were subject to restrictions and the provider had identified where their support needed to be reviewed Staff received training to meet the needs of people living at the service and received supervision, to support and develop their skills.

People received food and drink that met their nutritional needs. However one person was not always following advice from a health care professional with regards to their dietary needs and management told us they would continue to monitor this. People had access to health support; referrals were made to relevant health care professionals when required.

People were supported by staff that were generally kind and caring. People's choices and decisions were respected. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity. People's independence was promoted.

There were processes in place for people and their relatives to express their views and opinions about the service provided. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service to enable the registered manager and provider to drive improvement.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager. However some people felt the management at Blubell Park were not always approachable and did not feel they listened to concerns.

Inspection carried out on 15 & 16 April 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 15 & 16 April 2015 and was unannounced.

Bluebell Park is a care home with nursing for up to 64 older people, which specialises in supporting people whom are living with dementia. There are three communities, Memory Lane, Woodland View and Bramble Way which are over three floors.

At the time of our inspection there were 63 people in residence.

At the time of the inspection the registered manager for the service had transferred to another service provision within Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited. The post was being covered by the Deputy Manager. 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.

At our previous inspection in October 2013, the service was meeting the regulations that we checked.

People told us that they felt safe at the service.

Some people using the service and staff felt that the current staffing levels did not ensure that there were sufficient staff available to meet people’s individual needs. The recruitment practices were satisfactory to ensure the risks to people’s safety were minimised.

People received their medication as prescribed and their medication was stored safely. Staff were appropriately trained in medicines management and their competency assessed to ensure people’s medicines were managed properly to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People had access to health care support to meet their needs in a timely manner.

People told us the care staff were caring and kind and that their privacy and dignity was maintained when personal care was provided. They were involved in the planning of their care and support.

People told us they enjoyed their food. However we saw that during meal times they were not always assisted to in a sensitive manner.

People told us they enjoyed using the service and received the right support. Relatives we spoke with told us that staff were caring and reliable. People were supported to take part in activities which suited their interest and hobbies.

People were confident to raise any issues, concerns or to make complaints, which would be listened to and acted on appropriately. Records showed complaints received had been documented and included the outcome and response to the complainant.

Quality assurance checks were in place to monitor and improve the service.

Inspection carried out on 7 October 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This was a follow up inspection. Please see our previous report for full comments.

We spoke with three people who used the service, two relatives and four members of staff including the registered manager.

People who used the service that we spoke with were happy with the care that was provided. One person whose relative used the service told us �I haven�t got one complaint�, and that �Staff are fantastic�. One person who used the service told us that they thought the care was �Generally very good�.

We found that care plans and risk assessments were up to date and had been reviewed regularly helping to ensure that people�s needs were met.

Medication administration records that we looked at were fully completed and medication was stored correctly.

Inspection carried out on 29 April 2013

During a routine inspection

As part of this inspection we spoke to five people who used the service and three relatives that were present on the day we inspected. We also spoke to seven members of staff including the registered manager. A number of people who used the service had varying levels of dementia, so not everyone would have been able to tell us about their care. Therefore in addition to talking to people we also spent some time observing how people were treated.

One person we spoke with stated �they try their hardest to make it like home�. Another told us �they do a very professional job�. We were also told that the provider had �been flexible and accommodating� to their relatives needs.

People did not raise any concerns about their care. However we found that care plans did not always reflect people�s needs and action identified had not always been carried out. We observed that people�s needs were not always met in a timely way or that people were appropriately supervised which may put their welfare at risk.

Sufficient pre employment checks had been carried out on staff members.

We found that people were not always given medication in accordance with the prescribing directions. Some medicines were stored incorrectly. The provider had not always adhered to their own policy.

We found that the provider had sufficient staff employed. People told us that staff were respectful and one person stated �they don�t speak down to people�.

Inspection carried out on 5 December 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with six members of staff and one person who used the service during this follow up visit specifically about the outcomes that we looked at. Staff felt that staffing levels had improved. One person told us that staffing levels "were so much better" another stated that staff morale had improved as a result of this. One person who used the service stated that "staff are great" and that all their care needs were met.

Please see our previous report for full comments.

Inspection carried out on 9 July 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke with three people using the service, four relatives, eleven members of staff including the registered manager and two health professionals who have had contact with the service.

A health professional informed us that the person that they were working with had �been to four or five care homes and this is their favourite�.

A person using the service told us that �this is the best�. Another stated �on the whole it�s very good�.

A health professional informed us that it was �clean and tidy� when they visited and that �staff were very helpful�.

One relative stated �nothing is too much trouble�.

One relative told us �the care here is superb, they are tremendous, but there are not enough to meet the needs, particularly at night�.

Inspection carried out on 20 July 2011

During a routine inspection

People told use that they felt the staff promoted their health and well being in a respectful and considerate manner.

People felt safe in the home and felt that their views were listened to and respected and any concerns or complaints would be addressed.

People told us they were satisfied with all aspects of service provision which included the homes environment, the meals provided at the home and the social activities provided.

People told us that they felt the staff were proficient in performing their duties and felt that their were sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs.