CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Blandford Grange Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found caring, safe and well-managed care, with some minor record-keeping issues.
This was an unannounced inspection over 12 and 13 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found kind and respectful staff, personalised care, suitable activities, good links with health professionals and stronger management systems.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in June 2018. The provider was no longer in breach of regulations. Inspectors still found a few minor recording issues and one bedroom-area odour issue.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as caring and compassionate. They knew people's histories, preferences and communication needs, and supported people with dignity.
“People were supported by staff that were caring, compassionate and overall treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff detailed information about individual needs and preferences. People and relatives were involved in care plan reviews.
“Care plans were personalised and provided details of how to support people to meet their individual preferences and assessed needs.” from the report
Improved safety
Risks were assessed and reviewed, with guidance for staff. Medicines, equipment and safeguarding arrangements were also checked and found to be managed safely.
“Risks were identified, and staff had guidance to help them support people to reduce the risk of avoidable harm.” from the report
Good activities and relationships
People were supported to socialise and follow their interests. Activities were planned around individual social, sensory, spiritual and physical needs.
“Each person had an individualised plan that was based on their social, sensory, memory, spiritual, intellectual and physical needs.” from the report
Stronger leadership
The home had introduced more robust checks and action plans to monitor quality and improve records. Staff said they felt supported and able to raise concerns.
“There were now effective and robust quality assurance systems in place to monitor and improve the service and to ensure legal requirements were met.” from the report
Some care records needed updating
needs fixingInspectors found minor shortfalls in some wound care plans and monitoring records. The manager took immediate action, but families should check how this is now monitored.
“There were some minor recording shortfalls in relation to people's wound care plans and monitoring records.” from the report
Learning from incidents was not always recorded
needs fixingAccidents and incidents were analysed, but the results were not consistently included in people's care plans.
“However, the outcomes of the analysis had not consistently been included in people's care plans.” from the report
One dignity concern
needs fixingOne person said their dignity had not been maintained on one occasion. The manager responded by reminding staff and planning further dignity training.
“However, one person told us that overall their dignity was maintained but there had been one occasion where their dignity had not been maintained.” from the report
Slight odour in some bedrooms
minorThe home was clean and generally free from odour, but inspectors noticed a slight malodour in a small number of ground-floor bedrooms.
“A small number of bedrooms on the ground floor had a slight malodour.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that wound care plans and monitoring records are complete and up to date?
- 02How are lessons from accidents and incidents added to people's care plans?
- 03What action was taken after the reported occasion when a person's dignity was not maintained?
- 04How do people living on the first and second floors access the gardens and community?
- 05How successful has the recruitment and retention plan been, and how often are agency staff used now?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five key questions, including the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 2019 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, June 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe risk management, weak care planning and poor oversight, despite some safe medicines practice and kind interactions.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 21 and 23 February 2018. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, training records and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Requires Improvement: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks linked to some people's behaviour were not managed well, staffing was not always enough, care plans lacked important detail and staff needed more dementia training.
The home also failed to follow conditions attached to three Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations. Cleanliness, communication, activities, complaints oversight and management checks needed improvement. This was the first inspection since the home was registered, so there was no earlier rating in this report to compare with.
Medicines administration
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. Staff had been trained and assessed as competent.
“Medicines were managed, stored, given to people as prescribed and disposed of safely.” from the report
Friendly interactions
Inspectors saw most staff speaking to people in a friendly way. People appeared relaxed in their company.
“We observed the majority of staff talking to people in a friendly way and people looked relaxed in their company.” from the report
Food and drink support
People received help to eat and drink in line with their assessed needs. Inspectors saw staff give people time to eat and swallow.
“People received this assistance in line with their assessed needs.” from the report
Basic safety checks
The home had regular checks and servicing for equipment, fire safety systems and the lift.
“Premises and equipment were managed to keep people safe.” from the report
Managing behaviour-related risks
seriousCare plans did not give staff enough detail about how to support some people safely. Staff were not always available to supervise people in communal areas.
“Risks associated with some people's behaviour were not effectively managed.” from the report
Staffing and activities
needs fixingThe report found that staffing levels were not always enough to manage risks or provide meaningful activities and outings. Inspectors recommended that staffing levels be reviewed.
“There were not enough staff to provide meaningful activities and support to allow people to pursue their interests or be supported to go outside.” from the report
Deprivation of liberty conditions
seriousThe home did not follow conditions attached to three authorisations. The report states that this was unlawful.
“These conditions were not followed.” from the report
Dementia care and training
needs fixingCare did not consistently reflect dementia care guidance. Staff said they needed more training and were not always confident managing distressed or challenging behaviour.
“All staff told us they required more training and support to meet the needs of people living with dementia including supporting people with behaviours that may challenge others.” from the report
Cleanliness
needs fixingSome areas and items were unclean or damaged, including toilets, sinks, a mattress and chairs with ripped fabric. Inspectors said this affected infection control.
“The home was unclean in places, with dirty marks in areas such as on walls near key pads, some chairs had ripped fabrics, stained sinks in the kitchenette and an empty room with an unclean mattress and chair.” from the report
Management and records
seriousAudits did not always identify risks or follow up incidents. Care plans, handovers and daily records were incomplete or lacked important information.
“The provider's approach to governance did not effectively identify the concerns we found at this inspection.” from the report
- 01How are you now assessing and managing risks for people whose behaviour may put themselves or others at risk?
- 02What staffing levels are in place on each shift, and how do you make sure people can have meaningful activities and go outside?
- 03How do you check that all conditions attached to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations are being followed?
- 04What dementia training have staff completed, and how are you checking that they can respond consistently to distressed behaviour?
- 05How have you improved care plans, handovers, incident reviews and cleanliness since this inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole service, including accommodation and nursing or personal care, and it considered all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 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 Blandford Grange Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 February 2016.
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
15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset
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.
Most charge £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
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.