Blenheim Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care and support was person-centred. Care was coordinated to maximise independence and planned to incorporate people’s choices and preferences. For example, people could choose when they woke up and went to bed as well as choosing what to eat. Care plans were person centred to ensure care was provided in accordance with people’s preferences.

The provider shared several positive news stories about very specific and individual support. Activities were wide ranging; people were invited to monthly activities meetings. The registered manager shared documentation with us which said, “It is essential to show people that we listen to their ideas and love to put their suggestions in place and try new activities.” People and relatives told us visitors where welcome without any restrictions.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service held regular cultural celebrations and planned inclusive menus. Residents participated in the planning, and their voices helped to shape the calendar.

The registered manager told us how they partnered with a physiotherapy team, they said, “We provide the environment; they provide the physiotherapy. Together, we’ve created a space where residents regain mobility, confidence, and independence, right here at home.” The provider covered the cost of the initial assessment; people could choose to purchase further sessions.

During the inspection the provider had been working towards becoming a veteran friendly care home. Following the inspection the provider informed us they had now been certified as a Veteran Friendly Care Home.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs and preferences were recorded in care plans. Accessible information was available to people who required it. For example, documentation was available in large print.

Relatives told us information was provided in a clear way, and an information printout was shared with them weekly. Relatives told us they were consistently kept informed about what was happening with their relative.

The provider made it easy for people and their relatives to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care. The registered manager told us, “We introduced Resident Ambassadors, a peer-led initiative where select residents advocate for the wider community. They observe care practices, speak on behalf of others, and offer feedback directly to management.” One person who had previously worked in a role at a care home prior to living at the service, was invited to departmental meetings, “ensuring her wisdom and expertise could continue to shine.”

People were asked for their feedback when their care plans were reviewed, at residents’ meetings, at activities meetings and through daily conversations. The chef sought feedback from people to enable him to plan a menu that was driven by people. There was a grumble box available where people could post any concerns they had. We saw evidence feedback had been listened to and acted on which supported continual improvement.

Relatives told us they were invited to relative’s meetings and most relatives told us they had never had to complain but knew who to complain to should it be needed. They were confident any complaint would be taken seriously and addressed. One relative told us they had complained once, and it had been dealt with to their satisfaction. The provider had accessed advocates for some people who did not have anyone to advocate for them.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider had care plan summaries which they could download to share with medical professionals when required, this helped to ensure people received the appropriate care in a timely manner. A health care professional told us, “We find that they work well with all healthcare professionals in our team. From our experience they contact other healthcare professionals appropriately when needed or when our team requests.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff treated people as individuals and adjusted care and support to meet individuals’ needs and preferences. The registered manager and staff gave us several examples of how people’s outcomes had been improved since living at the service.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. This meant the provider had considered people’s future and end of life planning to ensure if people’s health were to deteriorate, staff would know how people wanted to be cared for at the end of their lives. Where people did not want to discuss end of life care this was respected.