Blossom Home Care London Borough of Sutton

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 good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received personalised care that met their needs. A staff member told us, “[The registered manager] will explain details of the client and the package and what is needed. They would explain everything. When I’m there I also have a chat with the person and see how they would like things to be done and how they prefer things.” People and their relatives were involved in care decisions and care planning. They told us their family member’s needs were regularly reviewed, and they were able to adapt the care provided as required. One relative said, “My [family member’s] needs are monitored, and I can raise changes when needed. They also ask for feedback through an app, though I haven’t used it much."

We found one person’s care records did not contain sufficient detail about how the person wanted to be supported and what staff needed to do during the care visit. The staff were aware of their duties and people and their relatives confirmed care was provided. We discussed the lack of detail in the care record with the registered manager who promptly addressed this and added in the additional detail.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The staff worked closely with people and their families to support continuity of care. At the time of our assessment people’s relatives were leading on coordinating people’s care, should they require medical assistance. However, the provider had put in place hospital passports to help with communication and liaised with any specialist health professionals should they be supporting people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff took account of people’s communication needs and were able to adjust how they communicated with people to ensure information was accessible and in a format people understood. This included providing information electronically so people could use assistive technology to read the information. Information was available in large font text and additional languages should it be required. Staff adjusted their communication to support people who were visually or hearing impaired.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

No complaints had been made since the service started operating. Nevertheless, a complaints process was in place to ensure any concerns were appropriately investigated and learnt from. People and their relatives were encouraged to speak up and openly with the staff and management team. One relative told us, “I can talk to them easily, and they listen."

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

A flexible service was provided that could be adjusted to meet people’s needs. Policies and procedures were in place to ensure people’s human rights were respected and people lived free from discrimination.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Information was included in people’s care records about their preferences and what was important to them. Staff understood and respected people’s cultures, religion and sexuality. Targeted recruitment was in place to recruit staff who spoke a certain language or from a specific cultural background in line with people’s preferences as to who they wished to be supported by.

People were 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.

As part of the assessment process, staff asked about people’s end of life wishes and how they wished to be supported. Information was included in people’s care records as to whether they wanted to be resuscitated. Copies of do not attempt cardiac pulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) forms were made accessible. Staff had received training on supporting people with end-of-life care.