CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Blossom House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate medicines systems and good infection control. Accidents and incidents were analysed so the home could reduce the chance of them happening again.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff received induction, training and supervision. People were supported with nutrition, healthcare, oral care and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people kindly and respectfully. People were supported to make choices, maintain privacy and dignity, and retain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were described as detailed, accurate, personal and regularly updated. People had access to activities, visits and support to follow their interests, and end of life wishes were recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and positive culture, clear staff responsibilities and stronger quality checks. Management had acted on the problems identified at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Blossom House Residential Home is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with significant improvements since the last inspection.
Inspectors visited without warning on 27 July 2023. They spoke with 12 people living at the home, 8 relatives and 10 staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, risk assessments, training and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, good infection control and staff who understood safeguarding. People had personalised care plans, support with food and drink, access to healthcare and help to make choices.
Inspectors found staff were kind and respectful. People were supported to maintain their independence, relationships and interests. Activities were available, and the home supported people with individual ambitions and end of life wishes.
The last rating was Requires Improvement, published in May 2020, with breaches of regulations. Inspectors found significant improvements and said the home was no longer in breach. The overall rating changed to Good.
Personalised care plans
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and wishes. They were reviewed and updated to help staff provide current, personal care.
“People's care plans reflected their individual needs and were kept under regular review.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to respond to people's needs and comfort. Medicines were administered by trained staff who had regular competency checks.
“There were enough staff to care for people and meet their safety needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected. Staff took time to know people and support their choices.
“People had their dignity respected and their independence maintained.” from the report
Activities and personal interests
People could choose from activities and were supported to follow interests that mattered to them. Inspectors saw examples of support for personal ambitions.
“The activities are excellent, people can choose what they do.” from the report
Improved leadership
Management had strengthened quality checks and acted on the previous inspection findings. Staff described management as approachable and supportive.
“The improvements following our last inspection were achieved by amongst other things, strengthening the effectiveness of the provider and management team's quality assurance activities” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and record my relative's needs, preferences, communication needs and end of life wishes?
- 02How do you make sure staffing levels and familiar staff are suitable for my relative's needs?
- 03How will you manage and review any 'when required' medicines my relative may need?
- 04What refurbishment and redecoration work is still planned, and how could it affect my relative?
- 05What changes from the previous inspection have been completed, and how do you check that they remain effective?
This inspection covered all five CQC questions, the care provided and the premises, including infection prevention and control; the previous inspection ratings were used for comparison. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 September 2023 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, May 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care, but care records and management systems were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced inspection over 20 and 25 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with 13 people, five relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. People said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Medicines were given as prescribed, staffing was sufficient, people could access healthcare, and staff supported people's dignity, choices and independence.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive and Well-led. Care plans were not always accurate or up to date. Some care was not recorded consistently, and management checks had not always found or corrected these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. This was the home's second consecutive rating at this level. The report identified breaches of Regulation 9, person-centred care, and Regulation 17, good governance.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe at the home. Staff understood their responsibility to protect people from abuse, and accidents were reviewed to reduce repeat risks.
“People felt safe living at the home and staff were aware of their responsibility to protect people against potential abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw friendly interactions, choices being offered and support that protected dignity and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Medicines and staffing
People received their medicines as prescribed. Inspectors found enough staff on duty and appropriate recruitment checks.
“People received their prescribed medicines and lived in a clean environment. Sufficient staff who had undertaken a recruitment process were employed to care and support people.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in social activities and visitors were welcomed. The home offered activities five days a week and planned to increase this.
“People were able to engage and participate in a range of social and fun activities.” from the report
Care plans were not reliable
seriousCare records were sometimes out of date, conflicting or inaccurate. Staff therefore did not always have clear information about how to meet people's individual needs, including personal care and end of life wishes.
“Care records were not always up to date and reflective of people's current care and support needs.” from the report
Management checks did not fix problems
seriousAudits had identified work needed, but care plans were not prioritised and checks did not consistently identify changes or missing information. Fluid records had gaps, and some medicine and allergy information was not followed up properly.
“Systems were not robust enough to effectively safely manage the service provided for people. This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Some personalised instructions were missed
needs fixingStaff were not aware of one person's guidance about the type of tea they should have. Other exercise instructions were not included in the care plan or supported by evidence.
“As a result, a personalised care need was not met.” from the report
- 01How have you updated care plans so they match each person's current needs, wishes and end of life choices?
- 02How do you check that staff follow personalised instructions, such as food, drinks, exercise and personal care needs?
- 03What action has been taken to make sure fluid records are complete and checked at the end of every shift?
- 04How have you corrected the problems with medicine changes, allergy information and personal evacuation plans?
- 05What progress has been made on the two breaches identified by CQC, and when was the provider's action plan completed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; Safe, Effective and Caring remained Good, while Responsive fell to Requires Improvement and Well-led remained Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 May 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.
Every inspection of Blossom House Residential Home
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Blossom House Residential Home →
- May 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Blossom House Residential Home →
- February 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 September 2012.
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 Worcestershire
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 £1,260 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.