Boldmere Court Care Home Also known as 1-341197990

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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 always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion.

Although people and relatives spoke in positive terms about the care team, we did find examples of people not being treated with kindness and dignity. We saw a person being offered eye drops in the middle of the dining room during lunch, which was not respectful of their privacy. We saw staff loudly discussing a person’s toileting needs and incontinence products in front of the person and others in the dining room. This was not respectful of the person’s privacy or dignity.

A relative told us about circumstances in the home which sometimes led to their loved one being fearful. The relative said they had repeatedly asked staff to support their loved one to leave the lounge and go to their own room when these circumstances arose. However, they frequently visited and found their loved one had been left to tolerate these circumstances. They were unable to remove themselves from the situation and therefore left to feel fearful without the support they needed.

One person we spoke with was uncomfortable in their bed. They had specific needs which meant a larger bed could have been helpful. The person told us they had asked twice for a larger bed, but nothing had changed. We told the registered manager this and the person had their bed replaced within a couple of hours. The person spoke very highly of the care team but had been uncomfortable for weeks with an issue which was easy to resolve.

We visited one person who was being cared for in bed. They had been positioned on their side facing a blank wall. The television was on in their room, but they could not see it. The sound was switched off so they could not hear it. We did not see evidence that the quality of the person’s experience had been considered.

Before meeting one person, staff told the inspector the person would be likely to ask for their favourite type of food because they asked for this a lot. The person said they were never offered this food, and they disliked a lot of the food they were given. It was not clear why if the person could communicate clearly and staff were fully aware of their wishes, they had not been given the food they wanted.

We did see some examples of kind and caring interactions between staff and people. People and relatives we spoke with described staff as, “caring”, “friendly” and “patient”.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Some people’s food preferences were not reflected regularly in the foods offered to them. One staff member told us the kitchen team provided carers with a menu for the following day, but the carers tended to make choices for people and not actually ask them what they wanted.

People whose distress could result in them harming themselves or others, were not always supported by detailed personalised guidance.

These concerns were raised with the provider who told us plans were put in place to address them.

People had individual communication plans which provided guidance about ways in which communication could be tailored to their needs.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Many people who did not require support to walk around the home were living on the middle and upper floors of the home. They required the assistance of staff to access the garden and outdoor spaces as the lift and stairs required codes to access for safety reasons. Some staff told us they had limited time to offer this support, and they felt this led to some people not getting as much access to outdoor space as they would like.

The provider stated those who were more often cared for in bed were accommodated on the ground floor for fire safety planning.

Many of the staff we spoke with, and most of the relatives we spoke with, told us they did not think there was enough for people to do. One relative told us, “[My loved one] spends their time in the lounge but with nothing to do.” Another said, “They do nothing with [my loved one] so they are bored and fed up.” Other relatives said they did not think their loved ones were well enough to engage in activities.

Staff spoke positively about the full-time activity coordinator. They said they did their best to help people get outside when they wanted to, but more staff were needed to provide sufficient activities for people.

Relatives told us they were happy with the access they had to visit their loved ones when they wanted to.

People who needed specialised equipment to help them access communal areas of their home had this. In some cases, people were in the process of being assessed to determine the most suitable equipment for their needs.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

A care call system was in operation in the home. This enabled people and staff to use a buzzer to call for help when needed. During our assessment the provider advised that the system did not provide any data to allow staff response times to care calls to be monitored. There was no evidence staff responses had been checked prior to our assessment. This meant the time people were waiting to receive help after pressing the buzzer was not reviewed. The provider had failed to ensure staff deployment was facilitating timely responses to calls for help. When we raised this the provider introduced spot checks to monitor how long staff were taking to respond to care calls. The provider also advised that they were planning to install and new and more effective care call system.

Although we saw examples of people receiving timely medical care when needed, some people had not received care to assess for the risk of head injuries.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Overall, the feedback given by staff about the support they received from the registered manager and provider was positive.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported to share concerns and confident of being listened to. Some staff said the new management team were usually visible and present which they felt was positive.

Most of the staff we spoke with told us they felt supported in their roles. They told us they could receive support if needed in relation to personal matters. Staff gave mixed views on whether or not they were receiving regular supervision. The nurses and medical technicians we spoke with said they received regular supervision. Some of the carers we spoke with said they had not been having regular supervision. One carer said they had never had supervision. The registered manager told us supervisions for carers had lapsed, but they had identified this and put in place a schedule to ensure all the carers had supervision.