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
- People felt safe, staff understood safeguarding procedures, medicines were safely managed and recruitment checks were completed. Inspectors also found some outdated risk assessment details and a staff sleep-in room without a window restrictor or documented risk assessment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health needs, choices and professional appointments were recorded. Staff received training, supervision and competency checks, although paperwork about legal safeguards and some decision-making did not fully support the care being provided.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind, caring, respectful and listened to them. The home supported independence, personal preferences, relationships, cultural needs and involvement in care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were up to date and person-centred. People chose how to spend their time and were supported with activities, outings, holidays, friendships and raising complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The registered manager carried out regular audits, meetings and checks, and staff spoke positively about the management. However, the home could not show complete and up-to-date records for one person's legal safeguards, so inspectors judged this area not always well-led.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but the home needed to improve its records and oversight.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 31 January 2019. They spoke with the registered manager, a support worker and one person living there. They reviewed care and medicines records, staff training, audits, meetings, complaints and building safety.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People said they felt safe and that staff were kind. Inspectors found that care was person-centred, medicines were managed safely, staff were trained and people were supported to take part in activities and make choices.
The Well-led rating was Requires Improvement. The home could not show paperwork proving that an application had been made for one person's legal safeguards after 2016. Some other records also needed improvement, including risk assessments and paperwork showing people's involvement in decisions.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection on 1 August 2016. This means the inspectors found the care to be good overall, but expected the home to improve its management records and checks.
Kind and respectful care
Staff listened to people's views, respected their privacy and supported them to do things for themselves.
“People told us they were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and goals. People were supported with activities, trips, holidays and friendships.
“It was clear that the service was providing a person-centred service to people.” from the report
Trained and supported staff
Staff had training, regular supervision and competency checks in important areas such as medicines and first aid.
“Staff supervisions and team meetings took place every month.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The home completed criminal record checks and references before staff started work.
“Appropriate criminal records checks and references were completed prior to staff starting work.” from the report
Missing legal safeguard records
needs fixingThe home could not show evidence that an application for legal safeguards had been made for one person after 2016. The registered manager later confirmed that an additional application had been submitted.
“The registered manager could not show us they had applied for DoLS for one person after 2016.” from the report
Outdated risk assessments
needs fixingTwo risk assessments still included the name of someone who no longer lived at the home. The registered manager sent updated assessments after the inspection.
“However, we found two risk assessments had been incorrectly completed as they contained a person's name who no longer lived there” from the report
Window safety check
needs fixingA staff sleep-in room did not have a window restrictor. The room was not locked and there was no recorded risk assessment for this.
“People's rooms had functioning window restrictors but there was a staff sleep in room without a window restrictor; the room was not kept locked and the service had not risk assessed this.” from the report
- 01What evidence can you now show that all required legal safeguard applications are current?
- 02How do you check that risk assessments are updated when someone's circumstances change?
- 03How do you make sure people's own views are recorded when decisions are made about their care?
- 04Has the window restrictor in the staff sleep-in room been repaired, and has the room now been risk assessed?
- 05How are audit actions followed up to make sure record-keeping problems do not happen again?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the safety of the premises; one of the two people living at the home spoke with inspectors. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong support for independence.
Inspectors first visited on 29 July 2016, but people and staff were out on a trip. They returned on 1 August 2016 and completed the inspection. They spoke with one person, one staff member and the registered manager. They also reviewed two care records, two staff files and other service information.
The home supported two people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines support and detailed risk assessments. People were involved in decisions about their care, meals and activities. Staff supported access to health professionals and encouraged people to develop daily living skills.
Inspectors found kind and respectful relationships. Care plans were personal and regularly reviewed. People could take part in activities, trips and holidays, and could raise concerns. The home had an open culture and used checks and surveys to monitor the service.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found the service met the required standard in each area at the time of this inspection.
Safe, individual risk support
Risk assessments covered individual activities and behaviour that might present risks. Staff were given clear guidance to keep people safe while supporting independence.
“There were comprehensive plans and guidance developed following the identified risks which gave staff clear information on how to manage the risks” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to manage parts of their own medicines and daily routines. They took part in cooking, cleaning, shopping and other responsibilities.
“People were supported to keep and develop their independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found trusting relationships between people and staff. Staff respected people's choices, privacy and dignity.
“Positive relationships had been developed between people and staff who treated them with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
Care plans recorded people's preferences, routines and goals. People were supported to take part in activities, trips, holidays and local community events.
“People had an individual plan of activities for each day of the week which they developed with staff.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager used audits, surveys and complaints to monitor the service. Inspectors found that identified issues were acted on.
“The registered manger regularly audited the service and issues identified were acted on.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently review risk assessments when a person's needs or behaviour changes?
- 02How are people supported to manage their own medicines, and how is this checked?
- 03How often are care plans reviewed with the person, and what happens when their needs change?
- 04What activities and community opportunities are currently available to each person?
- 05How do you use complaints, surveys and audits to make improvements?
This was an overall inspection covering all five CQC questions; the planned visit on 29 July 2016 could not be completed because people and staff were out, so inspectors returned on 1 August 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 September 2016 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
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 July 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.