Balmoral 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 64 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

People’s care plans and records did not always demonstrate that people or their families had been involved in making decision around their care. The quality of care plans varied, with some referencing people’s likes and preferences and contained personalised detail about how people liked to be supported, and other care plans lacking any detail and being entirely task focused. We observed that whilst care was provided by kind and caring staff, there was limited opportunities to provide care which was personalised to the individual, and staff were often focused on providing task-based interventions. We observed staff generally knew people well and were able to have a joke with people at times. One person told us, “I am in bed most of the time, but the staff do come in and make time for me to have a chat. I don’t feel isolated, and my door is always open.”

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

The provider had good working relationships with local services and supported people to access services when needs were identified. The home worked with community services, including spiritual groups, and occasionally arranged trips out, such as a previous visit to Blackpool. At the time of our visit, the home did not have a dedicated activities coordinator, so activities only took place when care staff had time. The registered manager understood people’s protected characteristics, and measures were in place to meet specific needs in these areas.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate, and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. Information was available within the home, and the registered manager told us they had access to various methods for adapting information to ensure it was accessible to people.

The home had notice boards to help orientate people to the day and menu, although these were not always effectively updated. The registered manager also explained that flash cards were used when needed and noted that people’s communication skills often improved as they settled into life at the home.

The provider had some systems for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

There was some evidence that people were involved in decisions about their care and aspects of how the service was run. For example, staff were observed responding to individual requests, when one person asked about a quiz, staff took steps to organise the activity. The registered manager also stated that people had been involved in choosing the décor during the last redecoration of the communal areas.

However, further work is needed to ensure people are more formally and consistently involved in decisions about the service. While a complaints policy was in place and there was evidence that formal complaints were responded to, the service needs to improve how it captures and used informal concerns to support ongoing improvement.

The provider ensured that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when required.

People were supported to access necessary services. Opticians visited the home to provide eye care, and people had access to local doctors and nurses. Dental care was also arranged when needed. The registered manager acknowledged some challenges in accessing certain services due to pressures in the healthcare sector, but the home worked to minimise the impact of these difficulties for people.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people most likely to experience inequality in their care or outcomes, meaning care was not always tailored to individual needs.

People did not always have access to the mental stimulation they needed, due to challenges in recruiting a suitably experienced activities coordinator. When staff were able to provide activities, such as quizzes or reminiscence sessions, these were positively received and people fully engaged. However, care staff often lacked the time to provide this support, resulting in people frequently having little to do other than watch television, and many reported feeling bored. One person said, “Recently there haven’t been many activities, but we do play games and bingo sometimes.” Despite this, people were well treated and respected by staff and were happy with other aspects of their support.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, including at the end of their life, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff worked closely with healthcare services to ensure people received appropriate care and support as they approached the end of life. Processes were in place to coordinate with healthcare professionals, ensuring people received necessary care and medication to remain comfortable. The home had received many thank-you cards from families whose relatives had been supported by staff during this time.