Bluebell House Residential and Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff spoke to people in a calm and reassuring manner and took time to understand their needs.

People were supported in a way that preserved their dignity and privacy, including during personal care. For example, we observed a staff member speaking with a person about their personal care and asking for consent before providing support. Once the person had agreed, the staff member closed the door to maintain privacy and dignity.

We observed positive interactions throughout the inspection, where staff demonstrated patience and respect and responded to people in a caring and supportive way.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We found staff treated people as individuals and understood their specific needs and preferences. Care and support were adapted to reflect what mattered to each person. For example, one relative told us, “The care is really good, for example [family member] hates being touched in any way, so they have limited and reduced personal care to twice a day, knowing how much it traumatises [family member]. The staff manage it well.” This showed staff respected people’s preferences and delivered care in a way which reduced distress and promoted wellbeing.

One person told us, “They are very good to us,” which reflected positive experiences of personalised care.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We found people were supported to maintain their independence and were given choice and control over their care. Staff respected people’s preferences and encouraged them to make decisions about their day‑to‑day lives, including their routines and how their care was delivered.

Care was adapted to reflect individual wishes, and people were supported to do as much as possible for themselves. This promoted independence and ensured people remained in control of their care and support. For example, when one person’s needs changed, they were involved in discussions about moving to a downstairs room to better meet their needs. This meant adjustments were made in line with the person’s preferences, enabling them to maintain their independence and access their environment more easily.

We saw activity boards and photographs displayed, which showed there was a planned programme of activities and people were supported to engage. We also observed people taking part in activities on the day of the inspection. This meant people were encouraged to remain socially engaged and take part in meaningful activities which promoted their wellbeing.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We found the provider responded promptly to people’s immediate needs. Staff were attentive and available, people received support when they needed it. We observed call bells were answered in a timely manner, which ensured people were supported without delay. This meant people’s needs were met promptly and they felt safe and reassured they could receive assistance when required.

Staff had good knowledge of relevant health care concerns, how to identify them in the people they supported and how to respond. Relatives said if staff noticed if their relative were unwell people were supported to see a GP, or healthcare professional if they needed one, and relatives kept informed of the outcome. This meant staff were able to identify changes in people’s health and responded promptly by seeking appropriate medical support, while keeping relatives informed of any concerns.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

We found the provider supported staff wellbeing and enabled them to deliver person‑centred care. Staff told us they worked well as a team and supported each other during shifts. Regular meetings in-between shifts and team meetings helped ensure staff had the information they needed. This meant staff felt supported and were able to provide consistent care to people.

The service promoted staff feedback and input through regular staff surveys, which empowered staff to share feedback and be open.

One member of staff told us, “Staff are encouraged to share ideas and concerns during meetings, handovers, and supervisions. Feedback is taken seriously, and learning from incidents or mistakes is discussed openly to improve practice.”

People using the service and their relatives are also encouraged to give feedback to help improve care” This meant staff felt listened to and supported within their roles, which helped create a positive working environment and enabled them to provide high-quality, person-centred care.