Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Blenheim Court Care Home

Requires improvementpublished 9 October 2025, 11 months ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, April 2019

Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind care and improving management, but care records did not always set out people's risks clearly.

This was an unannounced inspection on 19 March 2019. Two inspectors and an expert by experience spoke with people, visitors, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.

People said they felt safe and that staff were kind and respectful. Medicines were managed safely, staffing met people's needs, and staff supported people to eat, access healthcare and make choices.

The main weaknesses were incomplete care plans and risk assessments. Some records did not explain important health risks, support needs or best-interest decisions. Activities did not always provide meaningful stimulation for everyone, especially people on different floors.

The home was rated Good overall. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. This was the first inspection since the home registered with CQC.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    Inspectors observed compassionate care. People and relatives also said staff were caring, attentive and respectful.

    “Our observations of staff interactions with people showed that people were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.” from the report
  • Safe medicines

    Medicines were stored and given safely. Records were clear, and guidance was available for medicines given when needed.

    “Medicine administration was safe and medicines were stored appropriately.” from the report
  • Staff knew people well

    Staff understood people's histories, preferences and risks. They supported people to make choices and responded when needs changed.

    “Staff's knowledge of the people they supported was good and they could tell us about the risks associated with people's care and how to minimise these.” from the report
  • Improving leadership

    People, relatives and staff described improvements after the management change. Staff felt supported and able to raise concerns.

    “Everyone consistently told us how they felt things had improved for the better since the company's management team had changed.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Incomplete risk records

    serious

    Some care plans and risk assessments did not explain important risks or the support staff should provide. This could be unsafe, particularly for new or agency staff.

    “Records did not always reflect that risks associated with people's care and support were assessed, which could pose a risk to people.” from the report
  • Activities were not consistent for everyone

    needs fixing

    Some people were unhappy with the activities available. One activity staff member could not always provide meaningful stimulation across both floors.

    “However, some people's comments suggested they were not always satisfied with the activity provision.” from the report
  • Mental capacity records needed improvement

    needs fixing

    Some capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not recorded for decisions about finances or medicines.

    “Where people didn't have capacity to manage their own finances or medicines, these capacity assessments and best interest decision were not recorded.” from the report
  • Care plan audits had not started

    needs fixing

    The home had not yet audited care plans, so it had not fully identified problems with risk, capacity and personalised information in its own checks.

    “The registered manager confirmed no care plan audits had been undertaken, meaning that some of the concerns we found about the lack of records associated with risks, capacity and personalised detail had not been fully identified.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How have you updated care plans and risk assessments, particularly for diabetes and behaviours that may pose risks?
  2. 02How do you make sure new and agency staff receive accurate information about each person's needs and risks?
  3. 03What has changed in the activity programme so people on both floors receive meaningful stimulation?
  4. 04Have all required mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions about finances and medicines now been recorded?
  5. 05Have regular care plan audits started, and how do you track and close any problems they find?

This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 April 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Blenheim Court Care Home

Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.

  1. April 2019Goodcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Blenheim Court Care Home →

  2. February 2018

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 February 2018.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire

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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.

“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
Emily B., about Prisca S.
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Roderick N., about Jaison M.
See live-in carers near HampshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.