Blenheim Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective - this means we looked for evidence that people's care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people's outcomes were consistently good, and people's feedback confirmed this. The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent to care and treatment.

This service scored 62 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People were assessed prior to moving into the service. People were reviewed regularly once they had moved in, and care plans and risk assessments were completed with people and regularly reviewed. The registered manager told us they would review and update everyone’s care plans and risk assessments in response to feedback given to them during the inspection.

People and some relatives told us they participated in the assessment of their needs. One relative told us, “My relative has been there about a year and a half; there was a pre-assessment, they went to see -them and had a discussion and assessment with us; I was involved all the way, it was a smooth transition.”

People had communication care plans in place and documents to take to hospital with them when required. Staff told us people’s views were sought by using their preferred communication methods across various platforms including, during daily support and review meetings.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. We observed the provider used evidence-based tools such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) designed to identify adults at risk of malnutrition, and Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary or Secondary Evaluation Tool (Purpose T) designed to assess the risk of pressure ulcers.

Where there were concerns relating to people’s swallowing, care plans were in place with guidance from Speech and Language Therapists (SALT) on how to support people safely. Some risk assessments were completed using scoring to assess people’s risk; however, all prompts had not been considered to ensure the assessed risk levels used to plan care were accurate.

The provider was motivated to work well across teams and services to support people. The service worked with speech and language therapists, general practitioners, community nurses and social workers. We sought feedback from professionals who worked closely with the service. We received mixed feedback from professionals. One professional told us, “I believe this service collaborates effectively with other health professionals. There is always a staff member available who takes the time to talk with me during my visits. Additionally, I always have the opportunity to sit at the computer and review any care plans I need to go over.” The registered manager told us they were working to improve working relationships with some external teams.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Relatives were positive about people being supported to live healthier lives, 1 relative told us, “They do speak to me about how little my relative eats, but they keep an eye on their weight and encourage them to eat and drink.” Another relative told us, “They arrange for the doctor to come in and they have the Covid top-up and the flu jab.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Care plans and risk assessments were not effectively reviewed to ensure care and treatment and plans of care remained effective. This included care plans and risk assessments in relation to epilepsy, mobility, medicines and nutrition and hydration. Following the inspection the registered manager told us they had updated care plans and risk assessments.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and did conduct mental capacity assessments when required. However, records relating to mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not always detailed and sufficiently comprehensive to show how decisions had been made in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).