CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Blair House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Blair House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and plans to manage COVID-19 staffing pressures.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 13 January 2022. CQC looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, arranged testing, managed visitors and admissions, and had up-to-date infection control policies. Staff used signs, separate areas and extra waste bins during an outbreak.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report therefore does not give an overall quality rating or a rated result for Safe care.
Consistent agency staff
When agency staff were needed, the home used the same agency workers and checked that they were not working in other homes, to reduce infection risks.
“Where agency staff were needed the registered manager had blocked booked the same agency staff for consistency as well as ensuring staff were not working in other homes putting people at risk of the spread of COVID-19.” from the report
Infection control measures
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE, testing, hygiene measures and its layout to prevent and manage infections.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home supported visits before the outbreak and used testing and separate entrances for visitors who needed to test on arrival.
“Prior to recent outbreak the service had supported families to visit people at the home without any additional restrictions.” from the report
COVID-19 systems
The provider had systems covering testing and visits by healthcare professionals.
“The provider had developed effective systems to ensure compliance in areas including COVID-19 testing and arrangements for visiting professionals.” from the report
Some people found isolation difficult
minorNot everyone understood the need to self-isolate, and some people moved around the home. Staff used signs and tried to keep people in defined areas, but this was an ongoing challenge during the outbreak.
“Not all people at the service understood the need to self-isolate and would wonder around the home.” from the report
- 01How do you support people who do not understand why they need to self-isolate during an infection outbreak?
- 02How would staffing pressures affect care, and what cover would be available if staff were absent?
- 03Do you still use consistent agency staff, and how do you check whether agency workers are also working in other homes?
- 04What testing, PPE and visiting arrangements are currently used for family members and visiting professionals?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the accommodation and some records needed improvement.
This was an announced inspection on 1 December 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, reviewed care records and checked the accommodation, staffing, medicines and management systems.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found people were treated kindly, received personalised support and were helped to take part in activities and maintain contact with others.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Some areas were cold or needed repair and decoration. Inspectors also found that records explaining how staffing levels were calculated were not detailed enough. The home said it would address these issues.
The previous overall rating was also Good. Improvements identified in 2015 about activities, complaints and care records had been addressed, so the responsive rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly, relaxed interactions and emotional support when people became worried. Privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
“We saw that the service ensured that people were treated with kindness and that they were given emotional support when needed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs and wishes and were reviewed. People received help with health conditions, personal care and other daily needs.
“We found that people received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to enjoy music, art, games, outings and other activities. The home also supported people to celebrate personal milestones.
“We saw people being supported to sing some of their favourite songs.” from the report
Safe medicines and learning from incidents
Medicines were stored and administered in line with written guidance. The manager investigated errors, accidents and near misses and took steps to reduce repeat problems.
“We found that the registered persons had ensured that lessons were learned and improvements made when things had gone wrong.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had addressed earlier concerns about hobbies and interests, complaints and the completeness of care records. The responsive rating improved to Good.
“At the present inspection we found that these shortfalls had been addressed.” from the report
Cold and damaged areas
needs fixingSome windows were rotten or broken, some rooms were cold and one bedroom had damp and damaged wallpaper. Repairs identified by the home had not always been completed quickly.
“However, some areas of the accommodation had damaged decorative finishes including scuffed paintwork and marked wallpaper.” from the report
Unmarked internal ramps
needs fixingSeveral ramps changed floor levels without being clearly highlighted. Inspectors said this created a risk that people could lose their balance.
“The presence of these ramps was not highlighted in any way creating the risk that people might lose their balance.” from the report
Staffing records lacked detail
minorInspectors could not fully check how the number of care staff needed had been calculated because the records were not detailed enough. The home said these records would be strengthened.
“However, we were not able to fully validate how the calculations had been completed in relation to care staff because the records were not sufficiently detailed.” from the report
- 01Have all the damaged windows, cold areas, damp and damaged wallpaper identified at the inspection now been repaired?
- 02How do you check that every room is warm and suitable for the people using it?
- 03What action has been taken to clearly mark the internal ramps and reduce the risk of falls?
- 04How do you now record and review the number of care staff needed on each shift?
- 05What changes were made after the medicine recording errors, and have there been any further errors?
This was an announced inspection covering all five key questions; the report also says the previous responsive concerns from 2015 had been addressed. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Blair House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 January 2012.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.