CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Blenheim Mount
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed, medicines were given as prescribed, staffing was adequate and recruitment checks were in place. Staff knew how to recognise abuse and respond to safeguarding concerns.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and regular supervision. People were supported with food, healthy choices, healthcare appointments and decisions about their care, with restrictions kept to a minimum.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed positive relationships between staff and people. Staff treated people with dignity and respect, supported privacy and independence, and helped people maintain important relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's likes, dislikes and support needs and were reviewed regularly. People could choose how to spend their time, go out when they wished and take part in activities matching their interests.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, regular quality checks and systems for learning from accidents and incidents. Feedback from people, relatives, staff and other stakeholders was positive.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Blenheim Mount was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no serious risks or concerns identified.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 11 February 2019. One inspector reviewed records, observed care, spoke with the manager and three care staff, and checked recruitment and management records. Only four people were present, and no residents wanted to speak directly with the inspector.
The home supported people with mental health needs. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were suitable, and staff had the training needed. People were supported with their physical and mental health, choices, independence and relationships.
Staff were described as kind, respectful and friendly. Care plans were personalised and reviewed. People could go out and take part in activities they enjoyed. Checks and audits were used to monitor the service, and the manager was meeting registration requirements.
The overall rating remained Good, as did all five areas inspected: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely and that staff were trained and checked before working alone.
“People's medicines were managed to ensure they received the treatments that were prescribed for them.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff were respectful and friendly. People appeared relaxed with staff and chose to spend time chatting with them.
“We saw that people and staff had developed positive trusting relationships.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences and explained how they wanted to be supported. Reviews were carried out and changes made when needed.
“People had a care plan that was personalised and contained evidence of their likes and dislikes and how they wanted their care and support provided.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, maintain relationships, attend activities and go out when they wished.
“People were supported to be independent and celebrate their achievements.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager and provider used audits and checks to monitor care, safety and improvements.
“There was a provider led audit programme in place to monitor the quality of care and identify shortfalls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and manage my relative's individual risks, including risks linked to mental health or behaviour?
- 02How will you involve my relative in care plan reviews if they do not want to take part?
- 03What activities, education, work or community opportunities could my relative take part in?
- 04How will you support my relative with medicines, including any medicines taken only when needed?
- 05How can my relative or family raise a complaint, and how will the home respond?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five areas, but only four people were present and no residents spoke directly with the inspector. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 March 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 Mount
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottingham
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 £1,270 a week. 73 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.