Blackwell Care Centre

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

We identified a breach in regulation in person-centred care. People did not always receive care which was personalised to them and in line with their care plan. Staff knew people well and were caring, however their interactions with people were task related. The interactions with people and staff were kind and caring when they happened. However, the lack of sufficient staffing levels did not enable staff to spend meaningful time with people.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives told us that generally they felt their relative's care was good and personalised to their needs. People and relatives were positive about the staff who worked at the home. One person said, “I like the staff very much. I am happy here”.

Whilst staff showed willingness to deliver good care, they told us it was not always possible due to high demands and lack of staffing. Staff told us they worked on a list of priority for baths and showers for people. This did not demonstrate that person-centred care was always delivered at the service. Leaders told us how people and their relatives were involved in their care and support, including reviewing people’s care plans. We were told how they made people’s care plans accessible to them.

Staff delivered care with a task focused approach. People were observed to be made to go to the toilet before mealtimes. One person was observed to tell staff they didn’t need to go to the toilet, but they were told they needed to. People were given baths or showers based on capacity of staff. Records showed 1 person had not had their hair washed in 2 weeks. Another person had not had a bath or shower for 2 weeks. Although we observed shortfalls in the standard of care being delivered, staff were observed to be kind and caring. Staff knew people well and were able to identify when people were showing signs of being unwell. For example, during staff handovers, staff discussed where people were displaying signs of infection.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Relatives told us they felt their family members were treated fairly and with respect. They told us they were given the opportunity to provide feedback. Relatives told us that food options were tailored to people’s individual needs. If a person preferred something different to the planned menu, this was provided.

Staff told us that people’s preferences are not always respected. For example, vegetarians were often served foods which is not in line with this however, we did not see evidence of this. The registered manager and staff understood the importance of ensuring all people had equal access to care. The registered manager told us of the systems they had in place to ensure people were given information in a way that was accessible and easier for them to understand. For example, if required making people’s care records in an accessible format.

Feedback was sought from people, relatives, and staff. The provider had implemented a, ‘You said, we did’ approach which outlined where improvements were being made. The provider also had a policy for equal opportunities and diversity. This outlined how the organisation aimed to provide a service to people and staff which was relevant, responsive, sensitive, and compliant with the Equality Act 2010.

People spent prolonged period of time isolated in their bedrooms. We observed 1 person who was on end of life care shouting out for the nurse throughout the second visit, and we heard the person tell staff they were lonely. We were able to speak with 2 relatives whose family members were receiving end of life care. Both were happy with the care their family members were receiving and no concerns were raised.

Staff did not consistently feel that enough time was given to people, and this was observed throughout our visit. One staff member said, “I can't see how this number of staff is enough to give a good standard of care. I go home upset sometimes”. The registered manager told us how they planned to work with a local hospice to deliver more advanced end of life care training. This was yet to be implemented.

Where people were receiving end of life care, people had appropriate records in place. For example, end of life care plans, external professional, and representatives’ involvement. All staff received end of life awareness training and the registered manager had completed an end of life care planning audit. This identified some areas of improvement were needed at the service.