Blenheim Mount

Rating at last inspection

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

People’s safety was protected by staff who understood how to recognise poor care and abuse. People’s risks were identified and managed to maintain their wellbeing. Medicines management arrangements ensured that people received their prescribed medicines as required and at the correct time. There were a sufficient number of suitably recruited staff to care for people and spend time with them.

People’s physical, mental and psychological health was monitored and staff worked with other professionals to support people. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff encouraged people to be involved in their care and supported them with their decision making when necessary.

Staff were kind, caring and friendly and treated people with dignity and respect. The atmosphere around the home was warm and welcoming. People were relaxed with staff and spent time chatting with them. People were able to go out when they chose and were involved in the social activities which interested them.

Audits and checks were in place to monitor the quality of the service and make improvements where needed. The registered manager was fulfilling the requirements of their registration with us.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Healthcotes Blenheim provides accommodation for up to eight people living with a learning disability. Seven people were living at the service at the time of the inspection and one person was in hospital.

Healthcotes Blenheim is required to have a registered 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. A registered manager was in place.

People received a safe service. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff had received adult safeguarding training and had available the provider’s safeguarding policy and procedure.

Risks to people's individual needs and the environment had been assessed. Staff had information available about how to meet people’s needs, including action required to reduce and manage known risks. These were reviewed on regular basis. Accidents and incidents were recorded and appropriate action had been taken to reduce further risks. Records of incidents relating to people’s behavioural needs were analysed for patterns and possible triggers. People received their medicines as prescribed and these were managed correctly. The internal and external environment was monitored and was safe.

Safe recruitment practices meant as far as possible only suitable staff were employed. Staff received an induction, training and appropriate support. There were sufficient experienced, skilled and trained staff available to meet people's individual needs.

People received sufficient to eat and drink and their nutritional needs had been assessed and planned for. Staff had a good understanding and awareness of meeting people’s healthcare needs. People received a choice of meals and independence was promoted. People's healthcare needs had been assessed and were regularly monitored. The provider worked with healthcare professionals to ensure they provided an effective and responsive service.

The home manager applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), so that people's rights were protected. Where people lacked mental capacity to consent to specific decisions about their care and support, appropriate assessments and best interest decisions had been made in line with this legislation. Where people had restrictions on their freedom and liberty this had been appropriately authorised by the supervisory body.

Staff were kind, caring and respectful towards the people they supported. They had a person centred approach and a clear understanding of people's individual needs, routines and what was important to them.

The provider enabled people who used the service and their relatives or representatives to share their experience about the service provided.

People were involved as fully as possible in their care and support. There was a complaint policy and procedure available and people were confident to report any concerns or complaints to the registered manager. People had information to inform them of independent advocacy services.

People were supported to participate in activities, interests and hobbies of their choice. Staff promoted people’s independence.

The provider had checks in place that monitored the quality and safety of the service. These included daily, weekly and monthly audits. In addition the provider had further systems in place that provided robust monitoring of the service.