The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Blenheim House Nursing Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

16-18 Blenheim Road, Redland, Bristol, BS6 7JW (0117) 973 9459

Provided and run by:
Messrs A & M Desai - Desai Care Homes

All Inspections

15 October 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 15 October 2015 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected in April 2013 and met with legal requirements. Blenheim House is registered to provide nursing care for up to 34 people. There were 33 people at the home on the day of our visit.

There was not a registered manager for the service; however the acting manager had applied to us to be registered as manager for the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The actions which had been identified by the service to keep people safe from verbal abuse were not always being carried out.

Staff were not always deployed in a way that made them accessible when needed. This could put people at risk if staff could not be located in an emergency.

Care records explained what actions were required to meet people’s care and support needs. People were consulted as part of the process of writing their care plans. Families were also involved if people were not able to make their views and wishes known.

Staff were caring in their approach to people when they assisted them with their needs. One person said “They can’t do enough for you they are all wonderful”. Staff were polite and respectful when they supported people with their care.

People were well supported to eat and drink enough for their health needs. Menus were planned with choices available which reflected people’s preferences. One person told us “I can have whatever I want and it is always good”.

The provider had a system in place so that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were implemented when needed. This legislation protects the rights of people who lack capacity to make informed decisions.

People were able to take part in individual activities as well as group ones. People told us that entertainers performed at the home and they went out on trips into the local area.

If people were able to and wanted to be they were involved in the writing of their care plans. Families were also asked for their input to ensure that people received care and support in the way they preferred.

People were well supported with their physical health care needs. Staff consulted with external healthcare professionals to get specialist advice and guidance when required.

Staff felt they were well supported in their work by the manager. People who lived at the home and staff told us they felt they could go to the manager whenever they needed to see them.

A system was in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. Audits demonstrated that regular checks were undertaken on the safety and quality of the service.

25 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with thirteen people who lived at the home to find out their views of Blenheim House and the staff who supported them with their needs. We also spoke with two relatives of people who used the service.

People had positive views to share with us about Blenheim House and what it was like to live there. Examples of comments people made included 'they are all nice here, my named carer has always got a smile on her face', and 'the manager is a lovely woman she is like a sister to me'.

Peoples' needs were being effectively met and people were receiving safe and suitable care at Blenheim House.

People's care plans contained up to date guidance information that clearly showed how to assist people to meet their range of personal care and nursing needs.

People had positive views about the meals that were provided for them at the home. Staff understood how to effectively support people with their nutritional needs, and how to assist those at risk of malnutrition.

The provider had recruitment procedures in place that aimed to ensure they only took on new staff who were safe and suitable to work at the home.

There was a system in place to properly check, monitor and where needed improve, on the effectiveness of the care and service that people received.

10 October 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited the service on 10 May 2012 and during our visit we found that there were no records to confirm what decisions people who had limited capacity were able to take for themselves.

We visited the service on 10 October 2012. The purpose of this inspection was to check that improvements had been made to achieve compliance with outcome 2. During this visit we found that improvements had been made and that there was now a system in place to regularly review people's capacity to take decisions and adapt to changed circumstances.

10 May 2012

During a routine inspection

We visited Blenheim House on 10 May 2012 and spent the afternoon and early evening at the service. We met and talked with several members of staff on duty on the day of our visit.

Not all of the people we spoke with were able to tell us whether the care and support they received was to their satisfaction because of dementia or ill health.

However, we talked with a number of people who were able to share their general views about the service and the staff who cared for them. We also met with family members of two people who were living at the home.

People told us "it's lovely here and "everybody's wonderful". We heard that "the staff are kind" and a family member told us "we are impressed with the care the staff show to the residents". People said that they were happy to ask if they wanted anything and that staff acted "in our best interests" if people were not feeling well.

Staff told us they worked well as a team and new staff who had joined in the last few months had settled in well and taken to the role and the team quickly. Staff said they were well supported in their role and felt that they were able to provide safe and effective care.

We found the service to be compliant with five of the six outcome areas that we looked at during our visit. However, the one concern we had was around consent and people's mental capacity not being assessed when appropriate. We were told that that the provider was making improvements in this area, but we found gaps in the evidence we looked at during our visit to the service.