Background to this inspection
Updated
15 February 2019
The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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.
Inspection team: The inspection of Bluebell Gardens was carried out by one Adult Social Care Inspector.
Service type: Bluebell Gardens is an extra care housing scheme. The CQC only regulates personal care provided to people at the service and not the accommodation people lived in. For this reason, we only looked at the care people received.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection: The inspection of the service was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit to ensure the registered manager, staff and people were available to speak with us.
What we did when preparing for and carrying out this inspection: We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse; and we sought feedback from professionals who work with the service. We assessed the information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection, we spoke with three people who received personal care from the service and two relatives’, to ask about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with seven members of staff including the registered manager, two assistant care managers and care staff.
We reviewed a range of records. This included three people's care records and medicines records. We also looked at three staff files to check the recruitment of staff. We reviewed records relating to the management of the service and training records.
Updated
15 February 2019
About the service:
Bluebell Gardens is an extra care housing scheme for older people, comprising of 61 flats with some communal areas. People who lived at the service had a separate care and tenancy agreement. At the time of our inspection the service supported 30 people with personal care. Some people who lived at the service received care and support from another provider. Other people required social and domestic visits or welfare calls only.
People’s experience of using this service:
•People were confident to raise any concerns they had with the registered manager.
•People had individual risk assessments so that staff had the information they needed to support them safely and minimise the identified risks.
•People's medicines were being managed safely and administered by trained staff. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and protected them from harm. The service carried out pre-employment checks on staff before they worked with people to assess their suitability.
•People and relatives provided consistently positive feedback about the care, staff and management. They said the service was caring, timely, effective and well-led.
•People's care was person-centred. The care was designed to ensure people's independence was
encouraged and maintained.
•People were supported by staff who were trained and received regular supervision.
•People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
•People told us staff were kind and caring and treated them with dignity and respect at all times.
•The registered manager completed audits to ensure the service was running in line with their policies and procedures.
•People and their relatives were asked for feedback about the service and were kept updated about any changes.
More information in Detailed Findings below.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 20 July 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until the next inspection. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.