CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Blossomwood
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, staffing levels were suitable, medicines were handled safely and staff knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans gave staff practical guidance, including for complex needs. People had access to healthcare professionals and were supported with food, drink and health monitoring.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were offered choices and supported to communicate in ways that worked for them.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was tailored to people's histories, preferences, communication needs and interests. People were helped to take part in activities and keep in touch with family and friends.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure, regular meetings, surveys and quality checks. Inspectors found that the management team acted on identified improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with the home larger than current best-practice guidance.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 5 February 2020. One inspector spoke with managers, staff and three people living at the home. They also observed care, reviewed records and sought information from professionals and the local authority.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly, supported to make choices and helped to take part in activities and maintain relationships.
The home provided care for up to 12 people with learning disabilities, autism or complex physical health needs. Inspectors noted it was larger than current best-practice guidance, but said the building design reduced any negative impact. The rating was unchanged from the previous inspection in 2017.
Staff know people well
People were supported by regular staff who understood their needs and preferences. Managers also worked shifts when needed, helping provide continuity.
“People received support from regular staff who knew them well.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care plans were detailed and support was adapted to each person's communication, health needs, interests and routines.
“People received person centred support which met their needs and preferences.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to make everyday choices and to be as independent as possible. Activities included outings, volunteering and individual hobbies.
“People were supported to live as full a life as possible and were enabled to participate in activities which interested them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff showing kindness, patience and respect. Staff supported people's dignity, privacy, relationships and preferred ways of communicating.
“Staff showed kindness and empathy.” from the report
Strong oversight
The management team used audits, meetings and surveys to check the quality of care and identify improvements.
“An action plan was completed to identify any improvements required as a result of the service audits and quality checks by the provider.” from the report
Home is larger than guidance
minorThe home was larger than current best-practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building design reduced any negative impact on people.
“The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties.” from the report
End of life wishes being documented
minorNo one was receiving end of life care during the inspection. The home was still waiting for families to return questionnaires so people's wishes could be recorded.
“The service was exploring ways of getting people's end of life wishes documented in their care plans” from the report
- 01How does the home's size affect day-to-day life, privacy and personal support for my relative?
- 02How would staff support my relative's specific communication needs and recognise when they are worried, unwell or in pain?
- 03What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative based on their interests?
- 04How are my relative's end of life wishes discussed, recorded and reviewed?
- 05How would the home manage my relative's health conditions, medicines, mobility needs or specialist equipment?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and care provided, and all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 April 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, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with medication audits needing to be more robust.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 27 June 2017. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people, staff and the manager. They also spoke with relatives and professionals after the visit and reviewed care records, medication records, recruitment files and management documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicine arrangements, good relationships and respect for people's privacy and choices.
People had individual care plans, suitable activities and support to keep in touch with family. Staff helped people access health professionals and managed risks appropriately. The home remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection.
Inspectors noted that medication audits could be stronger. The manager planned to contact the medication provider about an external audit.
Safe staffing and risk support
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Staff understood individual risks and how to reduce them.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared relaxed with staff. Inspectors saw privacy, dignity, humour and positive relationships in everyday interactions.
“People were relaxed and happy when interacting with staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's communication, preferences and support needs. Keyworkers reviewed plans and changes were acted on.
“The service was responsive to people's changing needs and people's preferences were taken into account so that they received personalised care.” from the report
Family involvement
People were supported to stay in contact with relatives, and relatives were involved in meetings and care reviews.
“Relatives we spoke with confirmed they were invited to meetings and reviews on a regular basis and kept informed of any changes that were being made.” from the report
Medication audits
needs fixingInspectors said the audits of medicines could be more robust. The manager planned to seek an external audit from the medication provider.
“we had a discussion with the manager how these audits could be more robust and they therefore planned to contact their medication provider for an external audit.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medication audits since the inspection?
- 02Did the medication provider carry out the planned external audit, and what were its findings?
- 03How will you support my relative's preferred way of communicating and making decisions?
- 04What activities would be suitable for my relative, and how will their preferences be included?
- 05How will you involve our family in care reviews and support contact with relatives?
This inspection assessed all five quality areas and the overall rating, using discussions, observations, records and feedback; the report also refers families to the previous report for a more comprehensive account. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 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 Blossomwood
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 December 2010.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.