The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Blenheim Court

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Elm Lane, Lane Top, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S5 7TW (0114) 245 6026

Provided and run by:
HC-One Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

14 July 2015

During a routine inspection

Blenheim Court Nursing Home is a converted house with a purpose built extension. The home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 44 people over two floors; however some of the bedrooms were large enough to accommodate two people. These rooms are now all single occupancy rooms and this means Blenheim Court now provide accommodation for up to 35 people. There were 34 people living at Blenheim Court on the day of our inspection. The home is a short distance from the local amenities such as shops, pubs, churches and has easy access to the city centre by public transport.

There was a manager at the service who was registered with CQC. It is a condition of registration with the Care Quality Commission that the home has a registered manager in place. There was a registered manager in place who was present on the day of our inspection. 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.

Our last inspection of Blenheim Court was on the 5th July 2013 and the service was found to be meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected at that time.

This inspection took place on 14th July 2015 and was unannounced. This means the people who lived at Blenheim Court and the staff who worked there did not know we were coming.

People told us they liked living at Blenheim Court. We were told “I love it here” by one person and another person told us “I think the staff here are very kind with me.”

Most people, relatives and staff we spoke with told us there weren’t enough staff available to care for people adequately. We were given examples of people having to wait for assistance to go to the toilet and waiting when two carers were needed to support a person to move safely.

We observed staff treating people with respect and upholding their dignity. They were kind and courteous to people. One person told us, “They (the carers) do a good job, considering they’re so busy all the time.” One relative said, “I don’t doubt they’re well trained, but it doesn’t help if there aren’t enough of them.”

Staff recruitment procedures were in place and thorough which meant that people were cared for by suitably qualified staff who had been assessed as safe to work with people. Staff demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities to protect people from harm.

Staff told us they felt supported by management. We saw evidence they had appropriate training and regular supervisions to enable them to undertake their jobs properly.

People and relatives told us that the registered manager was approachable and had mostly resolved any concerns they had raised.

There were activities available during the day for people to take part in, however these were limited and usually held in the main lounge. This meant they did not always meet the needs of every person living at Blenheim Court.

We saw care plans that reflected individual needs and preferences. However, there was no evidence that of mental capacity assessments had been completed. This means some people didn’t consent to treatment and people who knew them well may not have been consulted on how to best care for the person.

We found the home was clean; however the people in the seven rooms upstairs in the original part of the house did not have access to a bath or shower on their floor. This meant the person had to be supported to access the lift whenever they wanted a bath or shower.

We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure the policy and procedures in place were properly followed.

During our inspection we found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the end of the full version of this report.

5 July 2013

During a routine inspection

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment were planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. This was confirmed when we checked five care plans; spoke with people who used the service, their visitors and the staff on duty.

Health, safety and welfare of people were protected because the staff at the home worked in co-operation with other agencies for the benefit of the people who lived at the home. We were informed by community health professionals that nurses and the care workers at the home had a good rapport with them, organised appointments and co-operated with them.

Dedicated members of staff were seen carrying out cleaning duties throughout the home during our inspection. One person said, 'I like my room it's lovely and clean. The girls take care of it for me.' All staff at the home had received training on infection control and two staff told us the actions they took to minimise the risk of infection.

Medicines were prescribed and given to people appropriately. People were given time to take the medicine. We witnessed the nurse asking people whether they were in pain or discomfort during the routine medication round.

There was an effective recruitment and selection policy in place. All necessary checks had been carried out and satisfactory outcomes had been sought before staff were recruited at the home.

3 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We saw that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. The people we spoke with told us they decided things and staff respected their decisions. If anyone was unable to give consent systems were in place to consult other people to make sure things were carried out in their best interest.

People's comments indicated they received the care and support they needed and they were happy with how staff delivered their care. One person said, 'I can't fault the place, it's a very happy home.' Another person commented, 'The care is very good and the staff are lovely.'

People were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink. People told us they enjoyed the meals they received and said they provided variety and choice.

We saw the premises were in a good state of repair with improvements being made to d'cor and furnishings. People said they were happy with their rooms and the home's general facilities.

Staff received appropriate professional development. The staff we spoke with felt they were well trained and supported. They had access to a varied training programme that helped them meet the needs of the people they supported.

We saw the complaints procedure was available to people who used and visited the service. People told us they had no complaints, but said they would feel comfortable taking any concerns to the manager.

28 November 2011

During a routine inspection

Some people who live at Blenheim Court have some conditions that mean we had difficulty talking with them. Other people were able to express their views clearly. Due to people's communication needs we used informal methods of observation during the site visit. We sat with people in the lounges, observed care practices ,and saw how staff and people interacted with each other.

People told us that they were generally happy living at the home and that they were satisfied with the care they received. People said,' I am well looked after here." "It's a marvellous place." "The staff are so nice."

We spoke with 5 relatives who were visiting the home and they confirmed that they were satisfied with the care provided. One told us "The staff are great, they think so much about the residents." And another confirmed that "The care is excellent, I have no worries and I sleep at night knowing 'Y' is being looked after.'

We spoke with Sheffield Local Authority, Contracting and Commissioning Department and they told us that they had no concerns regarding contract compliance.

An authorised representative from Sheffield Local Involvement network (LINk's) visited the service this year. They reported on good practice especially around the standards of care and daily activities and felt people were well looked after.