Blenheim Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Staff knew the aims and values of the organisation. The registered manager told us each individual person was at the centre of their support when decisions about their lives were being made. People were consulted about their care and care plans; relatives’ input was sought where appropriate to do so. The provider’s values were shared with staff through training and team meetings. The provider had policies in place to support equality and diversity.

Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge and experience to lead effectively such as ensuring audit systems were effective and understanding the legal requirements in relation to pre-employment checks for staff. However, relatives consistently told us leaders were available when they needed to talk to them. Comments included, “I can contact the registered manager, and she will always email me back,” “Every so often the managers have a meeting with the resident’s families, and we can share concerns there; It is done on a regular basis,” and “The registered manager at the home have been very helpful.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The registered manager worked hard with people and with the staff team to foster a positive culture where people could speak up. Feedback was sought from people and their relatives at every available opportunity. We saw minutes of resident’s meetings where people were asked if there was anything they would like in the home or anything that needed replacing. We saw positive outcomes following people speaking up. The registered manager had an open-door policy. Once a week the registered manager held a breakfast club where people had access to her and could raise concerns or make suggestions on improvements.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. The registered manager told us, “Blenheim Court is more than a nursing home, it is a home of belonging. Our team is culturally diverse, and we celebrate that richness openly. Our events are not just social, they are learning opportunities, where residents and staff alike connect across traditions, values, and beliefs.” The registered manager supported staff nationality and culture by planning themed events and monthly activities recognising the diverse cultures amongst the workforce and people who lived in the service.

The service did not have effective governance which drove improvement and did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

Systems and processes were not operated effectively to ensure the service was safe and people were receiving high-quality care. The provider’s governance processes were not robust and were not used effectively to monitor the quality of the service, manage risks and drive improvement. This placed people at risk of harm. Audits were not effective at identifying and driving improvement. We found concerns in relation to safe recruitment, managing risk, medicines management and records in relation to the MCA which had not been sufficiently and comprehensively recorded. These concerns had not been identified or addressed by the provider prior to our inspection.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners, however, this collaboration did not always lead to improvement.

Where there had been communication barriers which hindered effective partnership working, the registered manager had worked to build relationships and develop positive communication.

The provider had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They always encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to research. The registered manager gave us several examples of innovation. They told us, “One of the most exciting developments underway at our home is our involvement in a pioneering, government-funded 3-year project focused on the development of a fall’s prevention robot. This initiative, which aims to move beyond traditional falls management and into active falls prevention, places us at the forefront of technological innovation in adult social care.” The registered manager told us 2 people and a relative were on the advisory committee with them and that people had interacted with the robot and provided direct feedback helping to shape its voice, personality and engagement methods.

The registered manager also told us about a person who, following a stroke, was supported to create the Blenheim Court Stroke Support Group. The registered manager told us this was, “A visionary initiative designed to unite stroke survivors through shared experiences, mutual encouragement, and holistic healing.”

People were supported to undertake the same training as staff where they expressed an interest.