You are here

Archived: Blenheim Court Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 14 October 2015

Blenheim Court Nursing Home is a converted house with a purpose built extension. The home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 44 people over two floors; however some of the bedrooms were large enough to accommodate two people. These rooms are now all single occupancy rooms and this means Blenheim Court now provide accommodation for up to 35 people. There were 34 people living at Blenheim Court on the day of our inspection. The home is a short distance from the local amenities such as shops, pubs, churches and has easy access to the city centre by public transport.

There was a manager at the service who was registered with CQC. It is a condition of registration with the Care Quality Commission that the home has a registered manager in place. There was a registered manager in place who was present on the day of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Our last inspection of Blenheim Court was on the 5th July 2013 and the service was found to be meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected at that time.

This inspection took place on 14th July 2015 and was unannounced. This means the people who lived at Blenheim Court and the staff who worked there did not know we were coming.

People told us they liked living at Blenheim Court. We were told “I love it here” by one person and another person told us “I think the staff here are very kind with me.”

Most people, relatives and staff we spoke with told us there weren’t enough staff available to care for people adequately. We were given examples of people having to wait for assistance to go to the toilet and waiting when two carers were needed to support a person to move safely.

We observed staff treating people with respect and upholding their dignity. They were kind and courteous to people. One person told us, “They (the carers) do a good job, considering they’re so busy all the time.” One relative said, “I don’t doubt they’re well trained, but it doesn’t help if there aren’t enough of them.”

Staff recruitment procedures were in place and thorough which meant that people were cared for by suitably qualified staff who had been assessed as safe to work with people. Staff demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities to protect people from harm.

Staff told us they felt supported by management. We saw evidence they had appropriate training and regular supervisions to enable them to undertake their jobs properly.

People and relatives told us that the registered manager was approachable and had mostly resolved any concerns they had raised.

There were activities available during the day for people to take part in, however these were limited and usually held in the main lounge. This meant they did not always meet the needs of every person living at Blenheim Court.

We saw care plans that reflected individual needs and preferences. However, there was no evidence that of mental capacity assessments had been completed. This means some people didn’t consent to treatment and people who knew them well may not have been consulted on how to best care for the person.

We found the home was clean; however the people in the seven rooms upstairs in the original part of the house did not have access to a bath or shower on their floor. This meant the person had to be supported to access the lift whenever they wanted a bath or shower.

We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure the policy and procedures in place were properly followed.

During our inspection we found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the end of the full version of this report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 14 October 2015

The service was not always safe.

There were not enough staff to meet everyone’s needs in a timely manner.

Medication was managed safely.

Staff told us they had safeguarding training and understood what they needed to do to if they suspected a person may have been abused.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 14 October 2015

The service was not always effective.

Care plans did not fully reflect whether a person had capacity to make decisions about their care.

There were keypad locks on the external and some internals doors which meant people may not have been able to move around their home freely.

People told us the food was good and they had choices of what to eat and where they could eat their meals.

Staff received appropriate training and had regular supervision to support them to undertake their jobs.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 14 October 2015

The service was not always caring.

We saw that not all people were always treated with dignity and respect.

People told us staff were mainly caring.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 14 October 2015

The service was not always responsive.

There were activities available, but these were not accessible by all people. The activities didn’t appear to meet the needs of people who lacked capacity to fully engage in the activities on offer or to those people who were unable to access the main lounge.

There was a clear complaints policy that was readily available. Most people told us that any issues they raised were resolved by the registered manager.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 14 October 2015

The service was well-led.

People told us the registered manager was approachable and responsive to any concerns they may have.

People, relatives and staff were consulted about what happened at Blenheim Court and action was taken where appropriate.

There were systems in place to check that policies and procedures were adhered to.