• Care Home
  • Care home

Blenheim Court Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Elm Lane, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S5 7TW (0114) 245 6026

Provided and run by:
Logini Care Solutions Ltd

Assessment report published 8 May 2025

Ratings

  • Overall

    Requires improvement

  • Safe

    Requires improvement

  • Effective

    Good

  • Caring

    Good

  • Responsive

    Good

  • Well-led

    Requires improvement

Our view of the service

Date of Assessment: 20 December 2024 to 8 January 2025. Blenheim Court is a care home providing accommodation for nursing and personal care to older people, some of whom are living with dementia. The service can support up to 44 people. At the time of this inspection there were 29 people living at Blenheim court. At the last inspection the service was rated requires improvement. At this inspection we found improvements were still required we identified a breach of regulation 12 and 18 and there was a continued breach of regulation 17. We identified concerns regarding fire safety, risk management staffing and lack of person-centred care. The service remains rated requires improvement in Safe and Well-led and rated requires improvement overall.

People's experience of this service

People told us the staff were lovely, and when staff interacted with people it was caring, and respectful. However, people said, there was not always enough staff on duty, staff were always rushed and very busy. For example, people said they did not regularly receive a bath or a shower. One person said, “I had a shower yesterday, before that I have not had one for 6 weeks.”

We observed staff were not always present in communal areas, therefore, people were at potential risk of harm as they were unsupported for periods of time. We also observed staff did not always provide person-centred care and support, at times it was task orientated. We saw staff also had to multitask. If a member of staff was off sick or on leave, staff had to cover a number of roles and responsibilities. This had a negative impact on people’s experiences.

Risks to people were not always managed, therefore people were at potential risk of harm.

Relatives also raised some concerns regarding staffing levels. We also found relatives were not free to visit at any time as there were some restrictions in place. The restrictions were not done in consultation with people and their choices or preferences were not taken into consideration.