Blossoms Care Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

The rating for the key question of Safe has deteriorated from Good to Requires Improvement. People were not always protected from risk and harm due to the limited identification and assessment of individual risks and staff training. The provider was in the process of making improvements. However, these were not in place at the time of inspection. Throughout our inspection at Blossoms Care Home Limited, we identified several shortfalls in the safety of the service. This resulted in us finding concerns related to risk management for people. The provider had failed to ensure risks to people’s health and safety had been assessed and done all that is practical to mitigate those risks. This led to a breach of the Regulation 12 (1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We also found concerns related to the training of staff. The provider had failed to ensure staff have sufficient skills and are competent to support the people living at Blossoms Care Home Limited. This led to a breach of the Regulation 18 (1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We observed staff working with people safely. People with injuries had the details of those injuries recorded and actions taken.

People told us they felt safe at Blossoms Care Home. One person said “ I feel safe here.” People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them from abuse. The service worked well with other agencies to do so.

Staff received safeguarding training and understood the signs of abuse and how to report any concerns. One staff member told us, “If we have any concerns we report and record the information. I have had my training.”

The provider had policies and procedures in place regarding safeguarding people. The provider was aware of their role and responsibilities about meeting CQC registration requirements including submitting statutory notifications about the occurrence of any key events or incidents involving people they supported. Notifications had been submitted.

Processes to ensure risks were mitigated and assessments reviewed was not effective in identifying and mitigating risks.

Staff told us they did not use any physical interventions with people. Staff felt risks were managed and they understood people's needs. One staff member said, "We don't take any risk at any time in Blossoms." Another staff member said, "We follow the risk assessments." During the inspection we informed the provider of our concerns with risk management. The provider agreed to review and update all risk assessments and a new fire risk assessment was booked.

Not all risks had been fully assessed and mitigating strategies recorded. For example, we found no risk assessments for when people became distressed or anxious, the risk of people attempting to climb over bedrails and risk of choking for people who required a modified diet. This put people at risk of not having their needs met safely. People were at increased risk from the environment. A fire risk assessment completed in 2023, identified concerns that required addressing within specified timeframes, we found 6 concerns had still not been rectified at our inspection. Records of fluid intake were not always completed to evidence people had sufficient fluids to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections and dehydration. People's care records were not always kept up to date. We found conflicting and missing information within people’s care files. This meant staff did not have the necessary information to understand people’s needs and risks.

During the site visit we observed 14 fire doors did not close properly and 1 person had an electric heater in their bedroom. These concerns had not been assessed or mitigating strategies implemented. We observed staff supporting people. During lunch time staff made people aware if the food or plate was hot.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Records evidenced staff were not sufficiently trained in Manual handing. All staff were out of date with their training, and we found no evidence of competencies being completed. We also found no evidence of staff being trained in supporting people when they become distressed or anxious. Not all staff working with people were detailed on the training matrix. One staff member told us, "I have not had any training." Staff were recruited safely. The provider requested references from previous employment and the employees' Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) status had been checked. The Disclosure and Barring Service carry out a criminal record and barring check on individuals who intend to work with vulnerable adults, to help employers make safer recruitment decisions.

We observed staff were able to respond to people in a timely manner. There appeared to be sufficient staffing during our inspection.

The service had enough staff. People, relative’s and staff told us they felt there were sufficient staff on each shift. One person told us, “I always have someone with me when I use the stairs.” Another person said, “If I need the staff I stand on my sensor mat and they come.”

Processes to ensure ensure staff received appropriate training had not identified the concerns found on inspection.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.