CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bluebells Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2023
St Martins is rated Inadequate and in special measures; inspectors found serious risks in safeguarding, staffing, medicines and management.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 19 June 2023. Inspectors looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment files and management records.
The overall rating fell from Good to Inadequate. Safe and Well-led were rated Inadequate, while Effective Requires Improvement. Inspectors found people were at risk because safeguarding concerns were not always reported, risk plans were incomplete, medicines were not always managed safely and staffing and recruitment checks were not reliable.
Inspectors also found people were not always supported to make everyday choices, staff did not consistently receive suitable induction or training, and records and quality checks were poor. The provider had recently appointed a new representative and acting manager, who had identified many problems and started an action plan.
The home was placed in special measures. CQC said it would normally re-inspect within six months to check for significant improvement. The provider was also required to meet conditions placed on its registration.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, protective equipment and possible outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Some management changes
The acting manager and operations director had begun an action plan and staff said the acting manager was fair and open to concerns.
“The acting manager and operations director had developed an action plan and prioritised areas that needed improvement quickly, such as risk management, safeguarding and consent.” from the report
People had more choice
During the inspection, people were allowed to eat where they wanted. This was a recent change after the acting manager and operations director became more involved.
“During the inspection, people were eating their meals where they wanted.” from the report
Outdoor space
The garden was secure and accessible, with shaded areas, suitable furniture and opportunities for people to help grow and water flowers.
“The garden was secure and accessible to people.” from the report
Safeguarding and openness
seriousIncidents that should have been referred to the local safeguarding authority were not always reported. Staff and relatives also said they were not always able to raise concerns or hear about incidents.
“There was not an effective system in place to protect people from discrimination and abuse.” from the report
Risk and emergency planning
seriousSome care plans did not explain how to manage important risks. Emergency evacuation plans were incomplete, staff had not practised evacuations and some equipment training had not happened.
“Staff had not been trained to use evacuation equipment or practiced evacuations.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
seriousRequired employment checks were missing or delayed, including DBS checks. Staffing levels were regularly below the assessed need and this delayed care and meals.
“Sufficient numbers of staff had not consistently been deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines
seriousMedicine records did not always match the stock held. There was also insufficient guidance for some medicines given when needed and for people at risk of bleeding.
“Medicines were not always managed safely and records were not always accurate.” from the report
Choice and meals
needs fixingPeople were not always supported to make everyday decisions. Lunch usually had only one main choice, and people were not always helped to eat when meals were served.
“People had not been supported to make choices and decisions in their day to day life.” from the report
Poor oversight
seriousAudits and records did not identify or address important shortfalls. The provider's oversight had been poor until recently.
“Effective systems to monitor the quality of the service were not in place.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make safeguarding referrals promptly and to ensure relatives are told when incidents happen?
- 02Are all staff now safely recruited, including completed DBS checks, employment history checks and risk assessments?
- 03What are the current staffing levels on each shift, and how are missed or vacant shifts covered?
- 04How are medicines, including when-required medicines and blood-thinning medicines, now checked and recorded?
- 05Have evacuation plans been updated for every person, and have staff been trained and practised using evacuation equipment?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 October 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, November 2019
St Martins was rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care after improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
Inspectors visited on 23 and 24 October 2019 without giving notice. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
They found that people felt happy and safe. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed and care plans reflected people's choices. Staff supported people's health, meals, activities, independence and end of life wishes.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, and the provider was no longer in breach of the four regulations identified then.
Safe medicines
Medicines records were accurate and staff followed instructions for regular and as-needed medicines. Staff had training and regular competency checks.
“Medicines were now managed safely. Creams were stored safely and at the recommended temperature.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff adjusted how they spoke to people, gave them time and protected their privacy and dignity during personal care.
“We observed staff treating people with patience and kindness.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included detailed information about people's routines, communication, drinks, sleep and other preferences. Staff followed these plans in practice.
“Each person had a care plan that contained detailed guidance on how to support them.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in activities, trips and hobbies they enjoyed. The home also had regular links with a local nursery and supported family visits.
“People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Improved oversight
Management checks and audits had become more effective. Action plans were used to address and sign off shortfalls.
“Oversight of the service had improved since the inspection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently check that medicines records are accurate and that staff remain competent to administer medicines?
- 02How are my relative's personal routines, communication needs, food choices and preferred times for getting up and going to bed recorded and reviewed?
- 03What activities, trips and opportunities for maintaining hobbies would be available for my relative?
- 04How would you respond if we raised a complaint, and how would we be kept informed about the investigation?
- 05How do you check staffing levels when there is sickness or annual leave, and how do you ensure agency staff know people's needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 November 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 Bluebells Care Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.
- October 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodEffective: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.