CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Blenheim House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were well managed, staff understood safeguarding procedures and medicines were administered and stored safely. The home was clean and checks were carried out to maintain a safe environment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff were trained and supported, healthcare needs were met, and the legal process was followed when people could not make particular decisions themselves.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and families said staff were kind and considerate. Staff respected privacy and dignity, involved people in care planning and supported independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records were personalised, regularly reviewed and included clear goals. People were supported with communication, friendships, activities and community involvement, but end-of-life wishes had not been discussed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found open and inclusive leadership, regular feedback from people and families, and systems for checking service quality. Staff said they felt able to raise concerns.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Blenheim House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with end-of-life wishes not yet discussed.
This was a planned inspection on 19 and 23 December 2019. One inspector spoke with people, staff, family members and health or social care professionals. Records about care, medicines, recruitment and management were also checked.
The home supported up to seven people with a learning disability, with three people living there during the inspection. Inspectors found that all five areas were rated Good. Risks and medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, and people were treated with dignity and respect.
People were supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities and community life. Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. The main gap identified was that people's end-of-life wishes had not been discussed.
Managing risks
The home identified risks and staff knew how to reduce them. It also learned from accidents and incidents to help prevent them happening again.
“Risks were well managed. Staff understood potential risks and how to mitigate them.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored and given safely. Records explained the support people needed and were checked regularly.
“Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration and storage of medicines.” from the report
Supporting independence
Staff encouraged people to do things for themselves where possible. People had opportunities to develop skills and access the local community independently.
“People were supported to be independent where possible.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, communication needs and goals. Staff knew people well and supported activities that mattered to them.
“Care records were regularly reviewed. They included important information about the person and were written in a person-centred way.” from the report
Open leadership
People, families and staff were encouraged to give feedback. The management team monitored quality and acted on issues identified.
“People, family members, staff and visitors were encouraged to feedback on the quality of the service.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingThe home had not discussed people's end-of-life wishes. This could make it harder to know and follow a person's preferences if their needs changed suddenly.
“People's end of life wishes had not been discussed.” from the report
- 01How will you discuss and record my relative's end-of-life wishes, and when will this happen?
- 02How do you decide the staffing level needed for each person's individual needs?
- 03How are medicines audited, and how do you review any as-required medicines?
- 04What goals would you set with my relative to support independence and develop new skills?
- 05How would my relative be involved in care planning and decisions if they could not make a particular decision themselves?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, following the previous Good rating published on 20 June 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 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, June 2017
Blenheim House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and person-centred support, with all five areas rated Good.
Inspectors visited on 11 May 2017. The announced inspection was carried out by one inspector, who spoke with all three people living there, managers and support workers. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and service records.
The home was found to be safe and well staffed. Medicines were managed properly, risks were assessed, and staff had the right checks and training. People were supported to make choices, stay healthy and attend appointments.
Care plans were detailed, regularly reviewed and focused on each person's preferences. People had access to activities, community outings and leisure opportunities. Staff were described as kind and respectful, and managers used audits and meetings to monitor the service.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home remained Good compared with the previous inspection in March 2015.
Safe medicines
Staff were trained to give medicines and their competence was checked regularly. The records reviewed were complete and accurate.
“Medicine administration records (MAR's) that we look at were completed correctly with no gaps or anomalies.” from the report
Respectful support
Staff understood people's preferences and communication needs. Inspectors saw warm, meaningful relationships and support for privacy, dignity and independence.
“We observed that staff and people had developed strong and meaningful relationships.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, choices and daily routines. They were reviewed regularly and people and relatives were involved in writing them.
“Care plans looked at during the inspection were person centred and contained very detailed information on how the person liked to be cared for and their needs.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in activities such as college, voluntary work, swimming, cinema visits, shopping and meals out.
“People were supported to access activities in the community, which included visits to shopping centres, college, voluntary work, swimming, the cinema and for meals out.” from the report
Management checks
Managers used regular audits, staff meetings and meetings with people to identify improvements and discuss concerns, activities and choices.
“The registered manager and other senior staff carried out a number of quality assurance checks in areas including medicines, care planning, health and safety and staff files, to monitor and improve the standards of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staffing levels reviewed when people's appointments, activities or community outings change?
- 02How is the risk assessment for independent time in the community monitored and updated?
- 03How will the deputy managers support the registered manager, who is also responsible for three other nearby homes?
- 04How often will my relative and their family be involved in reviewing the care plan?
- 05Which activities and community opportunities are currently available, and how are people's choices recorded?
This was a comprehensive announced inspection covering all five CQC areas; inspectors spoke with all three people living there and reviewed two people's care records. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 June 2017 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 House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 November 2014.
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
31 live-in carers within about an hour of Redcar and Cleveland
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 £980 to £1,280 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.