CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Blossom House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including the use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning, visiting and outbreak planning. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection on 15 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care. The visit was announced with one day's notice.
Inspectors found the home clean, hygienic and well ventilated. Staff had suitable access to protective equipment and used it correctly. The home carried out COVID-19 checks and had action plans for possible winter pressures.
Visitors were welcomed under the guidance in place at the time. The home required evidence of a negative lateral flow test and appropriate vaccination, unless an exemption applied. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide a full overall quality rating.
Clean environment
The home was clean, hygienic and well ventilated. Cleaning was checked and high-touch surfaces were cleaned frequently.
“The premises were well-ventilated, clean and hygienic. Cleaning checklists were in use and cleanliness was monitored.” from the report
Protective equipment and training
Staff had enough protective equipment and used it appropriately. They had infection control training, and their competence was checked.
“Staff had plentiful access to PPE and wore this appropriately. Staff had undertaken in-house training in relation to infection prevention and control” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visitors were welcomed in line with the guidance in place. The home recognised that visits supported people's wellbeing.
“Visitors were welcomed to the service, the positive impact to people's well-being was recognised.” from the report
Pandemic planning
The home reviewed COVID-19 and other related risks. It had action plans and carried out regular checks.
“Regular COVID19, outbreak and other related audits were carried out to help identify any areas of concern. Action plans were in place and reviewed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures, and have these affected people's care?
- 02What infection prevention and control checks are being carried out now?
- 03What are the current visiting arrangements, and what testing or vaccination evidence is required?
- 04How do you review and act on any infection control concerns found in your audits?
- 05How will you support my relative to keep in touch with family if visits are restricted?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide a full rating for the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 19 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also observed care and checked care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe medicines systems, detailed care plans and kind relationships. People were supported with their health, communication, independence, activities and end of life wishes.
The overall rating had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in December 2018. The report says improvements had been sustained and that there was a plan for further improvements.
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found enough staff with the right skills to support people safely. Staff were calm and had time to spend with people.
“There were enough staff, with the right skills, to support people safely and according to their needs.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, preferences and communication. Staff could access the latest updates using hand-held devices.
“Care plans were detailed, person-centred and identified people's individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships and found that staff supported people's dignity, privacy, independence and emotional needs.
“Staff treated people with kindness and respect. There were positive interactions between staff and people they supported.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home offered activities linked to people's interests and took steps to reduce social isolation, including events involving families.
“The service supported people to take part in activities that were relevant to their interests and social needs.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The ratings for Effective and Well-led improved from Requires Improvement to Good. The provider had kept improvements in place and had a further improvement plan.
“The provider had sustained improvements seen at our last inspection, and had a plan in place for further improvements.” from the report
Manager registration was pending
minorA manager was in post but was not registered with CQC when inspectors visited. The report says an application had been made and was still in progress.
“The service had a manager in post, but they were not registered with CQC at the time of this inspection.” from the report
- 01What was the outcome of the manager's CQC registration application?
- 02How will you assess and update my relative's care plan if their needs or condition change?
- 03How would you support my relative's communication needs, including any hearing, sight or cognitive difficulties?
- 04Which activities would match my relative's interests and help them maintain relationships?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in planning end of life care, if needed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; inspectors reviewed six people's care records and medicines records. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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 Blossom House
6 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
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
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.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.