Blenheim House 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 decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People and relatives told us they had access to care plans and had been involved in reviewing people’s needs. We observed person-centred interactions between people and staff. Staff communicated well with people and took time to understand their care needs.

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. For example, if agency staff needed to be used the service tried to use the same staff to provide a continuity of care. Staff understood the needs of people living at the service and had been provided with relevant training. For example, staff had training on dementia care to make sure they had the skills to support people living in the dementia households. The service provided respite care when they had room to do so. The home manager told us this was sometimes in response to difficult situations people were facing in their own homes. People could stay for a short period of time at the service for convalescence or whilst repairs were carried out to their homes.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication. We found the provider was following the AIS making sure people’s communication needs were recorded. There were different ways information could be shared with people, for example, large font or pictorial information. People and relatives told us they had no concerns with this quality statement. Information had been provided in ways which helped understanding.

There was a complaints process which outlined different steps of the complaints procedure. This also included relevant organisations people could contact if they were not satisfied with the outcome of their complaint. Whilst people and relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint, they also said they had not seen a copy of the complaints procedure. We shared this feedback with the home manager. A record was kept of all complaints with details of investigations and outcomes. Where appropriate the home manager had support to investigate complaints from the provider central office teams.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The building was purpose built and fully accessible. People could access the gardens from the ground floor. People had their own rooms and en-suite bathrooms. There were also some communal bathrooms with fully hoisted baths for the less mobile. The local surgeries organised for healthcare professionals to visit the service every week so people could have visits in their own rooms. Where people had medical appointments outside of the service, staff helped with travel arrangements.

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. Relatives told us they had not observed any discrimination with regards to people’s care. One relative said, “There is no discrimination. There is such diversity in the home. [Relative] responds well to all the carers.” People's human rights had been promoted.

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. At the time of the assessment there was no end-of-life care being carried out. People’s records demonstrated they had been able to record their wishes and decisions for end of life. The home manager told us they involved specialist services for end-of-life care when appropriate. For example, the local hospice organisation could be contacted for advice and support for people and staff. Staff had been provided with training for end-of-life and had support from colleagues when needed.