Blossom Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 53 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. We could not be assured people received individualised care and support due to staff lacking time to complete personalised care and meaningful interactions. We observed people waiting for personal care and support with meals. We also observed staff rushing care tasks due to limited time. Care records contained conflicting information, and the environment was in need of refurbishment and lacked a ‘homely’ feel. People could bring personal effects for their own rooms, and we saw people had some personal items, such as photographs and memorabilia. A relative said, “[Name’s] room was plain, but we have bought stuff to make it more homely.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. We could not be assured people received continuity of care due to inconsistencies in care records, a lack of appropriate staff handovers and conflicting care information meant staff did not always have clear guidance to provide consistent care.

People were provided with accessible information. For example, easy-to-read materials were available in relation to health, and information about how to make a complaint was available to people, staff and visitors.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. Feedback surveys were in place and information about these were available. However, surveys showed mixed feedback from people, and concerns remained at the time of our assessment. People and relatives were involved in regular meetings to discuss their wishes about activities and food menus. However, we found concerns regarding a lack of activity provisions in place, meaning these were not effective in making improvements for people. A staff member said, “The registered manager never walks round and checks things.” Improvements were required to ensure staff could raise suggestions confidentiality.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We observed several external professionals visiting the service, including social workers. And people had access to district nurse teams, and staff had contacted emergency services where required for people. A relative said, “Staff don’t mess about if [name] needs to see a Dr.”

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. People’s experiences varied. For example, some people spent long periods without stimulation, while others had limited engagement depending on staff availability. Activities such as bingo, crafts and visiting entertainers took place; however, due to limited staffing and limited funding, these were not consistently available to all people. An activities co-ordinator was in place; however they could not effectively provide activities to all people due to the size and layout of the service, and they were often required to complete care tasks and to take people to appointments. A staff member said, “I have raised concerns about the lack of activities for people.”

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Whilst we found care plans contained detail about people’s wishes at the end of their life, these were not regularly reviewed, meaning information may be out of date. We also found some conflicting information in a person’s advanced decision about their capacity.