CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Blenheim Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe medicines management overall, enough staff, safe recruitment, good risk assessments and appropriate infection control. They recommended improvements to the recording of topical creams.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found open and supportive management, regular feedback and audits, and good working relationships with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but topical cream records needed improvement and there was no registered manager in post.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 and 28 April 2022. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led after concerns about risk management, care and support, and the management culture. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Good for Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe recruitment, good risk assessments, appropriate infection control and safe medicines management overall. People and relatives said people felt safe and staff knew them well.
There was one recommendation to improve records for topical creams. Some body maps were incomplete, and two topical cream records did not match the medicines given. The manager said this would be corrected and staff training was provided after the inspection.
The overall rating remained Good. This was a focused inspection, so the other three areas were not inspected and their ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and saw staff respond promptly to people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed safely.
“There were enough staff on duty to ensure people's safety.” from the report
Personalised risk support
Risk assessments covered areas such as mobility, swallowing, nutrition and pressure care. Staff followed individual plans and supported people using the least restrictive practices.
“Risk assessments were personalised, detailed and gave staff clear guidance on ensuring people were supported safely.” from the report
Positive management culture
Relatives, staff and health and social care professionals spoke positively about the management and staff team. The home used feedback, audits and meetings to identify improvements.
“There was a clear management structure in place.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home followed relevant infection prevention measures, including PPE, testing, cleaning and visiting arrangements.
“We were assured that the provider was using personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
Topical cream records
needs fixingSome body maps did not show where creams should be applied. For two people, the topical cream records did not match the medicines administered. The provider was asked to review its recording process.
“For two people we observed the topical cream MAR did not reflect medicines administered.” from the report
No registered manager
minorThere was no registered manager in post when inspectors visited. The report does not say whether this had changed by publication.
“At the time of the inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01How were the incomplete topical cream records corrected, and how are these records checked now?
- 02Who is currently responsible for managing the home, given that there was no registered manager at the inspection?
- 03What were the ratings for Caring, Effective and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
- 04How often are medicines, care plans, falls, accidents and infection control audited, and can families be told about any current actions?
- 05How will you keep staffing consistent when agency staff are needed at night?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection published on 12 November 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 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, November 2019
Blenheim Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no breaches reported.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 31 October 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices, stay independent and maintain relationships.
Staff knew people's needs and had the training and support to care for them. Medicines, risks, safeguarding, food and infection control were managed well. Checks and audits were used to identify improvements.
The previous overall rating was also Good, published on 22 May 2017. The report says the service will continue to be monitored through the normal reinspection programme.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and people's individual risks.
“People told us they felt safe living at Blenheim Care Home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found people were treated with dignity and involved in choices about their care. Staff encouraged people to keep their independence.
“People were supported and encouraged to maintain their independence and live their lives as fully as possible.” from the report
Good medicines and safety systems
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Risk assessments, infection control and incident reviews were also in place.
“The home managed their medicines safely. The home had arrangements for the ordering, storage and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and life histories. Staff had the information needed to provide individual care.
“Plans were personalised and relevant to the person.” from the report
Positive team and management
Staff said they worked well together and felt supported. Management used audits, meetings and feedback to oversee the home.
“Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the standard of care provided.” from the report
End of life plans varied
minorNo one was receiving end of life care during the inspection. Although every person had an end of life plan, the amount of information varied.
“These varied in content due to the information being available.” from the report
- 01How would you update my relative's end of life plan, and make sure it reflects their wishes?
- 02How would you support my relative's particular communication needs, including any hearing or sensory impairment?
- 03How would you support my relative to remain independent while managing their individual risks?
- 04How do you monitor medicines, including occasional medicines and prescribed creams?
- 05What activities and support are available for people who spend time in their rooms?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that looked at the home, care and all five key questions; the previous Good ratings were unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 November 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.
Every inspection of Blenheim Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 November 2010.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.