- Care home
Blossoms Care Home Limited
Report from 30 January 2024 assessment
Contents
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
The rating for the Effective key question remains Good. However, the quality statements we assessed: Assessing needs and Consent to care and treatment were scored at Requires improvement. Care plans were not always kept up to date, this meant staff did not always have the relevant information to understand each person’s needs. People told us they were offered choices in daily activities such as what clothes to wear or what food and drink they wanted. However, formal decisions were not always recorded as in the persons best interest.
This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.
Assessing needs
Staff did not always have the information required to support people safely. Not all care plans and risk assessments held up to date, factual information. For example, we found conflicting information regarding a persons modified diet, conflicting information for another person’s mobility and support needs and we found missing information regarding the deterioration of a person’s health needs.
People and relatives told us they were involved in the pre assessment care planning process. One relative said, "They [staff] spoke to me when [person] moved in. However, we have not had any updates or reviews since then." People’s care plans detailed their likes and dislikes. This included relationships, history, and any cultural or religious needs. Assessment of people's needs, including those in relation to protected characteristics under the Equality Act were reflected in people's care plans.
We found care plans were not regularly reviewed. One persons care plan had not been reviewed since June 2023. However, the person's needs had changed since then.
Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.
How staff, teams and services work together
We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.
Supporting people to live healthier lives
We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.
Monitoring and improving outcomes
We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.
Consent to care and treatment
During the inspection we observed a bedroom door that had been locked. The person was unable to unlock the door themselves and required staff to be present. There was no mental capacity assessment or best interest decision recorded to identify why this was the least restrictive option. We found some decisions relating to environmental restrictions had not been recorded. However, we found no evidence these decisions caused people harm or unlawful restrictions. Relatives were aware and were happy with the support offered. One relative told us, "Staff ask for consent."
Staff knew about people’s capacity to make decisions through verbal or non-verbal means. However, records were not always clear on the support a person received to make the decision. One staff member told us, "We normally ask for consent when necessary, and people are in involved in decisions if they can."
People who had been assessed as lacking mental capacity for certain decisions generally had assessments and any best interest decisions recorded. However, the rationale to ensure the options used were the least restrictive option had not always been recorded. We found the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Any conditions related to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations were being met