Blossom Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s needs were not always appropriately assessed, and people’s care records contained conflicting information. For example, a person’s care plan contained conflicting information regarding repositioning schedules, with different frequencies recorded in their daily records, which staff were unable to clarify. Another person’s care plan contained conflicting information about their nutritional needs relating to a specialised diet. This placed people at risk of receiving unsafe support.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Care was not always delivered in line with best practice. For example, there were no clear risk assessments or care plans in place to manage choking risks for a person requiring modified diet. Whilst we found no impact for this person, we could not be assured a decline or emerging risk of choking would always be recognised and acted upon due to lack of assessments.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. Communication systems were not always effective. For example, handover records contained gaps across several dates, and there was no structured discussion of key risks or service issues during handovers, such as maintenance or staffing concerns. Some heads of department meetings had taken place; however, these did not include operational care staff and had not always been held consistently. We could not be assured staff worked well together due to mixed feedback we received from staff. A staff member said, “They (provider) are cutting staff hours, it is getting me down. I don’t feel like I can approach the registered manager.” Partners told us staff worked well with them. A professional said, “People seem happy with their care. Staff know people well, which is a bonus for me.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. We could not be assured people were supported to maintain healthy lives, due to concerns we found relating to people’s pressure care and nutritional care. However, people had access to healthcare professionals. For example, care records evidenced involvement from GPs, nurses and specialist services such as speech and language therapists. We also observed several visiting professionals.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Systems to monitor and improve outcomes were not effective. For example, audits had not been completed regularly, and where they had been undertaken, they failed to identify significant concerns found during our assessment.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act were not consistently applied. For example, some people had fluctuating capacity recorded, but there were no clear or consistent mental capacity assessments to guide decision-making. People’s capacity was not always assessed and some people’s care plans contained conflicting information about their capacity to consent.