Archived: Blenheim Care Centre

We considered the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People using the service confirmed they were happy with the service and were being cared for safely, and one person said 'I feel perfectly safe, I know the staff are there if I need help.' Risks had been assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure people's individual needs were being met safely. Safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures were in place and staff knew to report any concerns to the manager. Work was needed to ensure all staff were aware of the external agencies to contact if they wanted to escalate their concerns, and the manager said it would be addressed. Safe recruitment practices were in place and were being followed.

Is the service effective?

People and their representatives had been involved with the development of the care records, so they could express their views and have these included. Care records reflected people's individual needs, preferences and choices and staff were able to demonstrate an understanding of these. People had access to healthcare professionals to meet their needs. People confirmed they could make choices about daily routines and meals, were happy with the care they received and were treated with respect. One person said 'all the girls have been absolutely brilliant.'

Is the service caring?

Staff treated people in a gentle and respectful manner when supporting and assisting them with their needs and people's privacy and dignity were respected. Comments we received from people included 'I'd have to go a long way to beat my carers. They are very patient with me and listen and try and help me' and 'they do the best they possibly can.'

Is the service responsive?

People's care records had been reviewed regularly so any changes to their care were identified and included. Satisfaction surveys were carried out annually and an action plan drawn up to address any issues identified. People and their relatives said they were confident to raise any concerns and were listened to. Regular meetings took place for people using the service and they were encouraged to make suggestions for activities. Meetings were held for relatives, however attendance was low. The manager had an 'open door' policy and encouraged people and visitors to discuss any issues so they could be addressed.

Is the service well-led?

The manager had been in post for several years and was registered with CQC. Staff said they were well supported by the manager who also ensured they undertook training to keep their knowledge and skills up to date. Systems to monitor the quality of the service were in place and where shortfalls were identified action plans were developed to address them.

During this inspection we spoke with five people using the service and eight staff members, including the regional director for the service. People told us they were happy with the care they received. One person told us "they look after me very well." Another said "they do their best to take care of me." We found that that people's care records were accurate, up to date and met their needs. Arrangements were in place for the management of medicines, however further improvements were needed in relation to the recording of medicines. The provider had an effective system in place to regularly monitor the quality of service provided.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. One person said 'I am always kept up to date with my relatives care'. 'They get me to look through the care plan if it needs to be changed, and ask me to sign to say I agree'.

People's needs were assessed, however care and treatment was not always planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans. We viewed four people's care records. Care plans were in place for identified needs, however they had not always been reviewed accurately. Care and treatment was not always planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People were not always protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines because although the provider had appropriate arrangements in place for the recording and administration of medicines, these were not always effective.

Staff received appropriate professional development. Staff we spoke with told us that they were fully supported to meet the needs of the people using the service. One staff member said 'I have done plenty of training'. Another said 'the management always tell us when we need to attend a course'.

We looked at the quality and monitoring systems that were in place to ensure people received safe and effective care. We found the monitoring systems that were in place were not robust to ensure the risks of receiving poor care were minimised.

However, we did identify some areas where the staff were not fully aware of people's needs, and did not always treat people with respect. Some people's needs had also not been clearly recorded. We also identified some areas in the environment that could be a risk to people, and we have made the provider aware of these.