CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Blenheim Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Blenheim Court Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were good.
The inspection took place on 20 November 2020 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection because the home was being used as a designated care setting for people discharged from hospital with a positive Covid-19 status.
Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control. They found the building clean and well maintained, with extra cleaning of high-contact areas. Staff worked in only one of the two units, had infection control training, and had their skills checked.
Inspectors were assured about visiting controls, social distancing, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, outbreak management and the infection control policy. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Clean premises
The home was clean and well maintained. Cleaning had been increased in areas most likely to be touched.
“The premises were clean and well maintained. Cleaning schedules had expanded to address more at-risk areas of the building.” from the report
Staff infection control
Staff had recent infection control training, and managers regularly checked their competence. Staff were also allocated to one unit only.
“All staff had received recent training in infection control and prevention and their competency in this was regularly checked by managers.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering PPE, testing, admissions, social distancing and managing possible outbreaks.
“We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting.” from the report
Communication about visits
Although visits were restricted, relatives and friends were told about the restrictions and the rules they needed to follow.
“Relatives and friends were kept informed of any visiting restrictions and the guidelines they were expected to follow.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What visiting arrangements are currently in place, and what rules must visitors follow?
- 02Do staff still work in only one unit, and how does this reduce infection risks?
- 03How often are high-contact areas such as door handles and light switches cleaned?
- 04How are new residents tested and admitted safely?
- 05How are staff trained and checked on infection prevention and control?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 2020 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, October 2019
Blenheim Court Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced planned follow-up inspection on 9 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management documents.
All five areas were rated Good. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported with their choices, meals, health needs, activities and end-of-life care. Medicines were administered safely and staffing levels were considered sufficient.
There were still some gaps in record keeping. Some risk assessments and emergency evacuation plans were not regularly updated. Daily records did not always show the care provided, and some care plan audits and consent records were incomplete.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and had breached a regulation about good governance. At this inspection, the breach had been resolved and the home was no longer in breach.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave consistently positive feedback. Inspectors saw warm relationships and staff protecting people's privacy and dignity.
“We observed warm and positive relationships between people and staff.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicine systems covered receipt, storage, administration and disposal. Staff were trained, had regular competency checks and records contained the information needed for safe administration.
“Medicines systems were organised and people were receiving medicines when they should.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were detailed and staff knew people's likes, dislikes and communication needs. People were offered choices about care, food and activities.
“Care and support plans were personalised and detailed how people should be supported with each task.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Management systems and monitoring were stronger, and the earlier governance breach had been cleared.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and this area was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Emergency plans needed review
needs fixingSome people's personal emergency evacuation plans had not been reviewed recently. Inspectors recommended a programme of regular review.
“Some people's personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) had not been reviewed recently” from the report
Daily care records were incomplete
needs fixingDaily records did not always show that care described in care plans had been provided. The report gives continence pad changes as an example.
“People's daily records did not always reflect the care given as described in the care plans.” from the report
Care plan audits were unfinished
minorCare plan audits were not up to date. The manager had planned time to complete them and said improvements would be made.
“Care plan audits were not up-to-date however the registered manager had booked time to meet with the clinical need to discuss the completion of these.” from the report
- 01How often are personal emergency evacuation plans reviewed, and when was my relative's last review?
- 02How do you check that daily records accurately show the care described in each person's care plan?
- 03Have all risk assessments been updated and cross-referenced with current care plans?
- 04Have the planned care plan audits been completed, and what did they show?
- 05Have all consent records been reviewed and signed where appropriate?
This was an unannounced planned follow-up inspection that considered all five CQC questions and followed up the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 October 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 Court Care Home
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 May 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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Sheffield
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 £1,270 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.