Archived: Blenheim House

Updated 21 December 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 27 November 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. This was because the service only provided support and care to a small number of people.

Before the inspection we reviewed records held by CQC which included notifications, complaints and any safeguarding concerns. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern at the inspection.

On this occasion we did not ask the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This was because we inspected this service sooner than we had planned to.

As part of our inspection we spoke with one person at the service, the registered manager, the deputy manager and two staff. We observed staff carrying out their duties, such as supporting people to go out and helping people to make their lunch and drinks.

We reviewed a variety of documents which included three people’s care plans, training information, staff files, medicines records and some policies and procedures in relation to the running of the service.

We last inspected Blenheim House on 17 June 2013 under the previous provider Solor Care South East when no concerns were identified.

Updated 21 December 2015

This inspection took place on 27 November 2015, was unannounced and was carried out by one inspector.

Blenheim House is a privately owned care home providing personal care and support to up to three people who may have learning disabilities and complex needs. People may also have behaviours that challenge and communication and emotional needs.

The service is a terraced property close to the centre of Deal. Each person had their own bedroom which contained their own personal belongings and possessions that were important to them. The service had its’ own vehicle to access facilities in the local area and to access a variety of activities.

There was a registered manager working at the service and they were supported by a deputy manager. They were also the registered manager of another service on the same road. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager, deputy manager and staff supported us throughout the inspection.

The registered manager had been in charge at the service for a long time. They knew people and staff well and had good oversight of everything that happened at the service. The registered manager led by example and promoted the ethos of the service which was to support people to achieve their full potential and to be as independent as possible. The registered manager made sure there were regular checks of the safety and quality of the service. They listened to peoples’ views and opinions and acted on them.

The management team made sure the staff were supported and guided to provide care and support to people enabling them to live fulfilled and meaningful lives. Staff said they could go to the registered manager at any time and they would be listened to. Staff had received regular one to one meetings with a senior member of staff. They had an annual appraisal so had the opportunity to discuss their developmental needs for the following year. Staff were positive about the support they received from the registered manager. Staff had support from the registered manager to make sure they could care safely and effectively for people.

A system to recruit new staff was in place. This was to make sure that the staff employed to support people were fit to do so. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty throughout the day and night to make sure people were safe and received the care and support that they needed. There was enough staff to take people out to do the things they wanted to. New staff had induction training which included shadowing experienced staff, until they were competent to work on their own. Staff had core training and more specialist training, so they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s specific needs. Staff fully understood their roles and responsibilities as well as the values of the service.

Before people decided to move into the service their support needs were assessed by the registered manager to make sure the service would be able to offer them the care that they needed. People were satisfied and happy with the care and support they received. The care and support needs of each person were different and each person’s care plan was personal to them. People or their relative /representative had been involved in writing their care plans. The care plan folders contained a large amount of information, some of which was out of date and did not give a true picture of the person. However, the staff working at the service had all been there for many years. They knew people very well and how to support people with their day to day needs and how to develop people’s independence and skills. Staff supported, monitored and recorded what people were achieving and how they were developing. This continuity of support had resulted in the building of people’s confidence to enable them to make more choices and decisions themselves and become more independent. People’s individual religious preferences were respected and staff supported people to attend church services.

Staff were caring, kind and respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff treated people as individuals with dignity and respect. Staff were very knowledgeable about people’s likes, dislikes, preferences and care needs. They approached people using a calm, friendly manner which people responded to positively. There were positive and caring interactions between the staff and people and people were comfortable and at ease with the staff.

Potential risks to people were identified. There was guidance in place for staff on how to care for people effectively and safely and keep risks to minimum without restricting their activities or their life styles. People received the interventions and support they needed to keep them as safe as possible. The complaints procedure was on display in a format that was assessable to people. People and staff felt confident that if they did make a complaint they would be listened to and action would be taken.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training. They were aware of how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns both within the company and to outside agencies like the local council safeguarding team. Staff knew about the whistle blowing policy and were confident they could raise any concerns with the provider or outside agencies if needed. The registered manager monitored incidents and accidents to make sure the care provided was safe. Emergency plans were in place so if an emergency happened, like a fire or a gas leak the staff knew what to do.

People received their medicines safely and when they needed them. They were monitored for any side effects. If people were unwell or their health was deteriorating the staff contacted their doctors or specialist services. People’s medicines were reviewed regularly by their doctor to make sure they were still suitable.

People were involved in activities which they enjoyed and were able to tell us about what they did. Planned activities took place regularly. People had choices about how they wanted to live their lives. Staff respected decisions that people made when they didn’t want to do something and supported them to do the things they wanted to.

People said and indicated that they enjoyed their meals. People were offered and received a balanced and healthy diet. They had a choice about what food and drinks they wanted and were involved in buying food and preparing their meals.

The registered manager and staff understood how the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 was applied to ensure decisions made for people without capacity were only made in their best interests. CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. These safeguards protect the rights of people using services by ensuring that if there are any restrictions to their freedom and liberty, these have been agreed by the local authority as being required to protect the person from harm. No DoLs applications had been made to the relevant supervisory body in line with guidance as no-one required one.

The registered manager had sought feedback from people, their relatives and other stakeholders about the service. Their opinions had been captured, and analysed to promote and drive improvements within the service. Informal feedback from people, their relatives and healthcare professionals was encouraged and acted on wherever possible. Staff told us that the service was well led and that the management team were supportive. The registered manager was aware of had submitting notifications to CQC in an appropriate and timely manner in line with CQC guidelines.